Despite the preponderance of theoretical and empirical evidence that suggests the use of pair/group work to promote second language learning, it is still unclear who can best form high performance groups. Should students be allowed to choose their working partners, or should teachers themselves assign students to pairs? This study set out to compare the nature of student-selected and teacher-assigned pairs while they were engaged in collaborative writing. All learner talk was audio recorded, transcribed and analysed for the quantity, type and resolution of language related episodes (LREs) as well as the patterns of dyadic interaction. Furthermore, the study examined the texts produced using both quantitative and qualitative measures. Our findings suggest that the teacher-assigned pairs generated significantly more LREs than the student-selected pairs, while there was no significant difference in the patterns of interaction between the two pairing methods. Meanwhile, the qualitative analysis of learner talk revealed a considerable amount of off-task behavior among the members of student-selected pairs. Moreover, as far as the outcome of pair work (collaborative writing) was concerned, the teacher-assigned pairs noticeably outperformed the student-selected pairs on measures of fluency and accuracy. Also, they produced significantly better texts in terms of organization, grammar and vocabulary.
AbadikhahS. (2011). Investigating language-related episodes during mechanical and meaningful output activities. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1, 281–294.
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.
Alegría de la ColinaA.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.
4.
AllanD. (2004). Oxford placement test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
AskewS. (2000). Feedback for learning. London: Routledge.
6.
AzkaraiA. (2015a). Males and females in EFL task-based interaction: does gender have an impact on LREs? VigoInternational Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 9–35.
7.
AzkaraiA. (2015b). L1 use in EFL task-based interaction: a matter of gender?European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3, 159–179.
8.
AzkaraiA.García MayoM.P. (2012). Does gender influence task performance in EFL? Interactive tasks and language related episodes. In Alcón SolerE.Safont JordáM.P. (Eds.), Language learners’ discourse across L2 instructional settings (pp. 249–278). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
9.
BaconD.R.StewartK.A.SilverW.S. (1999). Lessons from the best and worst student team experiences: How a teacher can make the difference. Journal of Management Education, 23, 467–488.
10.
BakerR.S.J.D. (2007). Modeling and understanding students’ off-task behavior in intelligent tutoring systems. Proceedings of ACM CHI 2007: Computer–Human Interaction, 1059–1068.
11.
BakerR.S.CorbettA.T.KoedingerK.R.WagnerA.Z. (2004). Off-task behavior in the cognitive tutor classroom: When students the system. Proceedings of ACM CHI 2004: Computer–Human Interaction, 383–390.
12.
BastaJ. (2011). The role of the communicative approach and cooperative learning in higher education. Linguistics and Literature, 9, 125–143.
13.
BasterrecheaM.Garcia MayoM.D. (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. 25–44). John Benjamins Publishing.
14.
BasturkmenH.LoewenS.EllisR. (2002). Metalanguage in focus on form in the communicative classroom. Language Awareness, 11, 1–13.
15.
BrownH.D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
16.
BrownG.T.L.GlasswellK.HarlandD. (2004). Accuracy in the scoring of writing: Studies of reliability and validity using a New Zealand writing assessment system. Assessing Writing, 9, 105–121.
17.
ChapmanK.J.MeuterM.ToyD.WriteL. (2006). Can’t we pick our own group? The influence of group selection method on group dynamics and outcomes. Journal of Management Education, 30, 557–569.
18.
ClarkC.T.ClarkI. (2008). Exploring and exposing a gap in L2 research: How socio-linguistics role and relationships facilitate or frustrate second language acquisition. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, 30, 101–113.
19.
CooperJ. (2005). Cooperative learning and college teaching: Tips from the trenches. In ShibleyI. (Ed.), The best of the teaching professor (pp. 46–47). Madison, WI: Magna.
20.
DamonW.PhelpsE. (1989). Distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 9–19.
21.
Fernández DobaoA. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40–58.
22.
FiechtnerS.B.DavisE.A. (1992). Why some groups fail: A survey of students’ experiences with learning groups. In GoodsellA.S.MaherM.R.TintoV. (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education. Syracuse, NY: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, & Assessment, Syracuse University.
23.
GassS.MackeyA. (2007). Input, interaction and output in second language interaction. In VanpattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175–199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
GoodmanL. (1990). Time and learning in the special education classroom. SUNY Press.
25.
HarmerJ. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. Cambridge: Pearson Education.
26.
HedgcockJ.LefkowitzN. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language writing, 1, 255–276.
27.
HiltonS.PhilipsF. (2008). Instructor-assigned and student-selected groups: A view from inside. Issues in Accounting Education, 25, 15–33.
KarweitN.L.SlavinR.E. (1981) Measurement and modeling choices in studies of time and learning. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 157–171.
30.
KeckC.M.Iberri-SheaG.Tracy-VenturaN.Wa-MbalekaS. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on learning and teaching (pp. 91–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
31.
KimY. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 114–130.
32.
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.
33.
LeeS.W.KellyK.E.NyreJ.E. (1999). Preliminary report on the relation of students’ off-task behavior with completion of school work. Psychological Reports, 84, 267–272.
34.
LeeserM.J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–82.
35.
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.
36.
LuX. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 36–62.
37.
MackeyA. (2012). Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38.
MackeyA.GassS. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
MahenthiranS.RouseP. (2000). The impact of group selection on student performance and satisfaction. The International Journal of Education Management, 14, 255–264.
40.
McKinneyJ.D.MasonJ.PerkersonK.CliffordM. (1975). Relationship between classroom behavior and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 198–203.
41.
MitchellS.N.ReillyR.BramwellG.SolnoskyA.LillyF. (2004). Friendship and choosing groupmates: Preferences for teacher-selected vs. student-selected groupings in high school science classes. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31, 20–32.
42.
MushtaqR.MurtezaG.RashidS.KhalidA. (2012). The influence of group selection method on grades, performance and group outcome. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2, 7003–7008.
43.
MyersS.A. (2011). Students’ perceptions of classroom group work as a function of group member selection. Communication Teacher, 26, 50–64.
44.
NassajiH.TianJ. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14, 397–419.
45.
NiuR. (2009). Effects of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18, 384–402.
46.
OakleyB.FelderR.M.BrentR.ElhajjI. (2004). Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of Student Centered Learning, 2, 9–24.
47.
PhilpJ.AdamsR.IwashitaN. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. Abingdon: Routledge.
48.
PriceP. (2006). Group work. In BuskistW.DavisS.F. (Eds.), Handbook of the teaching of psychology (pp. 265–269). Boston, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
49.
RobersonA.P. (2014). Patterns of interaction in peer response: the relationship between pair dynamics and revision outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University. Available at: http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/alesl_diss/34 (accessed March 2016).
50.
Ross-FeldmanL. (2007) Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities? In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 52–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51.
RussellM. (2010). The formation of effective work groups within an FE classroom. Research in Post-compulsory Education, 205, 205–221.
52.
ShehadehA. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 286–305.
53.
StorchN. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 5, 119–158.
54.
StorchN. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.
55.
StorchN.AldosariA. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17, 31–48.
56.
StorchN.WigglesworthG. (2007). Writing tasks: Comparing individual and collaborative writing. In García MayoM.P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 91–116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
57.
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.
58.
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). Harlow: Longman.
59.
SwainM.KinnearP.SteinmanL. (2011). Sociocultural theory in second language acquisition: An introduction through narratives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
60.
VygotskyL.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
61.
WatanabeY.SwainM. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair inter-action on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121–142.
62.
WigglesworthG.StorchN. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445–466.
63.
WilliamsJ. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325–40.
