Collaborative text reconstruction tasks such as dictogloss have been suggested as effective second language (L2) learning tasks that promote meaningful interaction between learners and their awareness of L2 target grammatical structures. However, it should be noted that the effect of pair interaction on the final product may differ depending on co-participant characteristics and particularly on proficiency disparities between partners. To date, most studies conducted on the effect of the different L2 proficiency of learners on paired performance have focused on the ways in which language learners interact, and the quantity and quality of language-related episodes (LREs) produced (Kim & McDonough, 2008; Leeser, 2004), often sidelining learners’ actual task performance. This study thus aims to investigate the extent to which partner L2 proficiency levels affect tangible language performance, particularly in terms of content accuracy in a dictogloss task. Results show large gains in idea units reproduced between first and second stages of the dictogloss across texts. However, while low-level students paired with high-level partners benefited most, this group also had the largest variation across the board and, overall, proficiency pairing did not systematically affect improvement in idea units. Idea unit analyses indicated that students tended to perform better on idea units from earlier parts of the text, and that some types of idea units were more discriminatory than others.
AldersonJ.C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BasterrecheaM.García MayoM.P. (2013). Language-related episodes during collaborative tasks: A comparison of CLIL and EFL learners. In: McDonoughK.MackeyA. (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 25–43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
3.
BerryV. (2007). Personality differences and oral test performance. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
4.
BrooksL. (2009). Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance. Language Testing, 26, 341–366.
5.
BrownJ.D. (2003). Standardized tests, classroom tests, and the case for on-campus ESL testing. In: DouglasD. (Ed.), English language testing in U.S. colleges and universities. 2nd edition (pp. 37–56). Washington, DC: NAFSA.
6.
BrownJ.D. (2005). Testing in language programs: A comprehensive guide to English language assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill.
7.
CarrellP. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 727–752.
8.
ChangY. (2006). On the use of the immediate recall tasks as a measure of second language reading comprehension, Language Testing, 23, 520–543.
9.
ChaudronC.RichardsJ.C. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics, 7, 113–127.
10.
CsépesI. (2002). Is testing speaking in pairs disadvantageous for students? A quantitative study of partner effects on oral test scores. novELTy, 9, 22–45.
11.
DavisL. (2009). The influence of interlocutor proficiency in a paired oral assessment. Language Testing, 26, 367–396.
12.
DunkelP.DavisJ.N. (1994). The effects of rhetorical signaling cues on recall. In: FlowerdewJ. (Ed.), Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 55–74). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
DunkelP.HenningG.ChaudronC. (1993). The assessment of an L2 listening comprehension construct: A tentative model for test specification and development. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 180–191.
14.
EllisR.BarkhuizenG. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15.
GarciaP.AsenciónY. (2001). Interlanguage development of Spanish learners: Comprehension, production, and interaction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 377–401.
16.
GlanzerM.CunitzA.R. (1966). Two storage mechanisms in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 5, 351–360.
17.
GohC. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System, 28, 55–75.
18.
HasherL. (1973). Position effects in free recall. The American Journal of Psychology, 86, 389–397.
19.
HenningG.GaryN.GaryJ. (1983). Listening recall: A listening comprehension test for low proficiency learners. System, 11, 287–293.
20.
IwashitaN. (1998). The validity of the paired interview in oral performance assessment. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 5, 51–65.
21.
JahnkeJ.C. (1965). Primacy and recency effects in serial-position curves of immediate recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 130–132.
22.
JohnsonR. (1970). Recall of prose as a function of the structural importance of linguistics units. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 12–20.
23.
JustM.CarpenterP. (1992). A capacity hypothesis of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.
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.
26.
KintschW.YarbroughJ.C. (1982). Role of rhetorical structure in text comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 828–834.
27.
KowalM.SwainM. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73–93.
28.
LeeS-K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57, 87–118.
29.
LeeserM.J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–82.
30.
MalmqvistA. (2005). How does group discussion in reconstruction tasks affect written language output?Language Awareness, 14, 128–141.
31.
MurdockB.B. (1962). The serial position effect of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 482–488.
32.
OckeyG.J. (2009). The effects of group members’ personalities on a test taker’s L2 group oral discussion test scores. Language Testing, 26, 161–186.
33.
OckeyG.J.KoyamaD.SetoguchiE. (2013). Stakeholder input and test design: A case study on changing the interlocutor familiarity facet of the group oral discussion test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10, 292–308.
34.
O’SullivanB. (2002). Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair-task performance. Language Testing, 19, 277–95.
35.
PicaT.KanagyR.FaladunJ. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction and research. In: CrookesG.GassS.M. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
36.
PorterD. (1991). Affective factors in language testing. In: AldersonJ.C.NorthB. (Eds.), Language testing in the 1990s (pp. 32–40). London: Macmillan.
37.
PrinceP. (2013). Listening, remembering, writing: Exploring the dictogloss task. Language Teaching Research, 17, 486–500.
38.
ReindersH. (2009). Learner uptake and acquisition in three grammar-oriented production activities. Language Teaching Research, 13, 201–222.
39.
RileyG.L.LeeJ.F. (1996). A comparison of recall and summary protocols as measures of second language reading comprehension. Language Testing, 13, 173–189.
40.
ShinS-Y. (2007). Do monologue and dialogue formats of speaking test affect students’ performance differently in heritage and non-heritage learners of Korean? Unpublished poster presented at American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL), Costa Mesa, CA, USA.
41.
SPSS Inc. (2011). PASW Statistics for Windows: Version 20.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
42.
StorchN. (1998). Comparing second language learners’ attention to form across tasks. Language Awareness, 7, 176–191.
43.
StorchN. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27, 363–374.
44.
StorchN. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5, 29–53.
45.
StorchN. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.
46.
StorchN. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.
47.
StorchN. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11, 143–159.
48.
StorchN. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275–288.
49.
StorchN.AldosariA. (2013). Pairing learners in pair-work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17, 31–48.
50.
SullivanJ.CaplanN.A. (2004). Beyond the dictogloss: Learner-generated attention to form in a collaborative, communicative classroom activity. Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 19, 65–89.
51.
SwainM.LapkinS. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 83, 320–337.
52.
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.
53.
SwainM.LapkinS. (2008). ‘Oh, I get it now!’ From production to comprehension in second language learning. In: BrintonD.M.KaganO. (Eds.), Heritage language acquisition: A new field emerging (pp. 301–319). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
54.
TaylorL.WigglesworthG. (2009). Are two heads better than one? Pair work in L2 assessment contexts. Language Testing, 26, 325–339.
55.
VasiljevicZ. (2010). Dictogloss as an interactive method of teaching listening comprehension. English Language Teaching, 3, 41–52.
56.
WajnrybR. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
57.
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.
58.
WigglesworthG.StorchN. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445–466.
WinkeP.JungS. (2012). Using idea units for evaluating second language comprehension: Methodological choices and issues. Unpublished paper, American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL) conference, Boston, MA, USA.
61.
ZwaanR.BrownC. (1996). The influence of language proficiency and comprehension skill on situation-model construction. Discourse Processes, 21, 289–327.
