This study examined the impact of learner proficiency on the occurrence and resolution of language-related episodes (LREs) in rehearsal of interactive speaking tasks and on the subsequent use of language items from LREs during performance of the same tasks in front of the class. Forty-eight learners from six intact English as a foreign language (EFL) classes at a Vietnamese high school were divided into three proficiency groups, each consisting of eight dyads. Group 1 was higher proficiency (HH) dyads; Group 2 consisted of mixed proficiency dyads (HL) and Group 3 was lower proficiency (LL) dyads. All the pairs rehearsed and then consecutively performed a problem-solving task and a debate task in two separate classroom lessons. The total data included 48 rehearsals and 48 corresponding performances collected during normal classroom hours. The results show that, overall, LL dyads encountered more language problems (more LREs) in rehearsal than HH dyads and they were less likely to resolve them successfully. However, they were able to use a majority of the correct resolutions in the performance as well as their higher proficiency counterparts. The lower proficiency learners were also found to employ memorizing and local rehearsing strategies to retain ideas and language items as they rehearsed for the upcoming performance. These findings have pedagogical implications for teaching and learning through tasks in EFL contexts and beyond.
AdamsR. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In MackeyA., (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 29–52). New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
AdamsR.Ross-FeldmanL. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form? In Belcher, D., & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The oral-literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing and other media interactions (pp. 243–265). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
3.
BitchenerJ. (2004). The relationship between the negotiation of meaning and language learning: A longitudinal study. Language Awareness, 13, 81–95.
4.
BrooksL.SwainM. (2009). Languaging in collaborative writing: Creation of and response to expertise. In MackeyA.PolioC. (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honour of Susan M. Gass (pp. 58–89). New York: Routledge.
5.
BygateM. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the devloping language of learners. In WillisWillisD. (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136–146). Oxford: Macmillan.
6.
BygateM. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate, M., Skehan, M., & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks (pp. 23–48). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
7.
BygateM. (2016). Sources, developments and directions of task-based language teaching. The Language Learning Journal, 44, 381–400.
8.
Bygate, M. (Ed.) (2018). Learning language through task repetition. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
9.
BygateM.SamudaV. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task-repetition. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
10.
BygateM.SamudaV. (2009). Creating pressure in task pedagogy: The joint roles of field, purpose, and engagement within the interaction approach. In MackeyA.PolioC. (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 90–116). New York: Routledge.
11.
BygateM.SamudaV.Van Den BrandenK. (Eds.) (2018). TBLT as a researched pedagogy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
12.
ChoiH.IwashitaN. (2016). Interactional behaviours of low proficiency learners in small group work. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 113–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
13.
DaoP.McDonoughK. (2017). The effect of task role on Vietnamese EFL learners collaboration in mixed proficiency dyads. System, 65, 15–24.
14.
DeKeyserR. (2007). Introduction: Situating the concept of practice. In DeKeyserR.M. (Ed.), Practice in second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 1–18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
DonatoR. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In LantolfJ.P., & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Westport: Ablex.
16.
EckerthJ. (2008). Investigating consciousness-raising tasks: Pedagogically targeted and non-targeted learning gains. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 121–145.
17.
EllisR. (Ed.). (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
18.
EllisR. (2009a). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509.
19.
EllisR. (2009b). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30, 474–509.
20.
Fernández DobaoA.F. (2012). Collaborative dialogue in learner–learner and learner–native speaker interaction. Applied Linguistics, 33, 229–256.
21.
FieldA. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. 2nd ediiton. London: Sage.
22.
FujiA.MackeyA. (2009). Interactional feedback in learner–learner interaction in task-based EFL classrooms. IRAL, 43, 267–301.
23.
FukutaJ. (2016). Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production. Language Teaching Research, 3, 321–340.
24.
García MayoM.P. (2002). The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 156–175.
25.
García MayoM.P.AzkaraiA. (2016). EFL task-based interaction: Does task modality impact on language-related episodes?. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second Language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 241–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
26.
García MayoM.Imaz AgirreA. (2016). Task repetition and its impact on EFL children’s negotiation of meaning strategies and pair dynamics: An exploratory study. The Language Learning Journal, 44, 451–466.
27.
GassS.MackeyA.Alvarez-TorresM.Fernández-GarcíaM. (1999). The effect of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49, 549–581.
28.
HawkesM.L. (2012). Using task repetition to direct learner attention and focus on form. ELT Journal, 66, 327–336.
29.
IwashitaN. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in non-native–non-native interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System, 29, 267–287.
30.
KimY. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 114–130.
31.
KimY. (2013). Promoting attention to form through task repetition in a Korean EFL context. In McDonoughMackeyA. (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational settings (pp. 3–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
KimY.J.PayantC. (2014). A pedagogical proposal for task sequencing: An exploration of task repetition and task complexity on learning opportunities. In BaraltM.GilabertR.RobinsonP. (2014). Task sequencing and instructed second language learning (pp. 151–177). London: Bloomsbury.
34.
KowalM.SwainM. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote metalanguage awareness in the French immersion classroom. In Johnson, R., & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 284–309). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
KuikenF.VedderI. (2012). Speaking and writing tasks and their effects on second language performance. In Gass, S.M., & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 364–377). London: Routledge.
36.
LaiC. (2015). Task-based language teaching in the Asian context: Where are we now and where are we going? In Thomas, M., & H. Reinders (Eds.), Contemporary task-based language teaching in Asia (pp. 12–29). London: Bloomsbury.
37.
Larson-HallJ. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge.
38.
LeeserM.J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form in collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.
39.
LeveltW.J.M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40.
LoewenS. (2007). The prior and subsequent use of forms targeted in incidental focus on form. In Fotos, S., & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form-focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honour of Rod Ellis (pp. 101–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41.
LongM.H. (2007). Problems in SLA. London: Erlbaum.
42.
MackeyA.KanganasA.P.OliverR. (2007). Task familiarity and interactional feedback in child ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 285–312.
43.
McDonoughK. (2004). Learner–learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32, 207–224.
44.
McDonoughK.SunithamW. (2009). Collaborative dialogue between Thai EFL learners during self-access computer activities. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 231–254.
45.
NassajiH. (2010). The occurrence and effectiveness of spontaneous focus on form in adult ESL classrooms. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 907–933.
46.
NguyenB.T.T. (2013). Tasks in action in Vietnamese EFL high school classrooms: The roles of rehearsal and performance in teaching and learning through oral tasks. Unpublished PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
47.
NguyenB.T.T.NewtonJ.CrabbeD. (2018). Teacher transformation of oral textbook tasks in Vietnamese EFL high school classrooms. In SamudaV.Van den BrandenK.BygateM. (Eds.), TBLT as a researched pedagogy (pp. 52–70). New York: John Benjamins.
48.
NiuR.JiangL.DengY. (2018). Effect of proficiency pairing on L2 learners’ language learning and scaffolding in collaborative writing. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 27, 187–195.
49.
OhtaA.S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. London: Erlbaum.
50.
OrtegaL. (2005). What do learners plan? Learner-driven attention to form during pre-task planning. In Ellis, R. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 78–209). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
51.
PhilpJ.WalterS.BasturkmenH. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: What factors foster a focus on form?Language Awareness, 19, 261–279.
52.
RévészA. (2012). Coding second language data validly and reliably. In MackeyA.GassS. (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 203–221). Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
53.
SampleE.MichelM. (2015). An exploratory study into trade-off effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on young learners’ oral task repetition. TESL Canada Journal, 31, 23–46.
SkehanP. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
56.
SkehanP. (2016). Tasks versus conditions: Two perspectives on task research and their implications for pedagogy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 34–49.
57.
SkehanP.FosterP. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211.
58.
StorchN. (2001). How collaborative is pairwork? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5, 29–53.
59.
StorchN. (2002a). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language learning, 52, 119–158.
60.
StorchN. (2002b). Relationships formed in dyadic interaction and opportunity for learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 305–322.
61.
StorchN. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17, 95–114.
62.
StorchN.AldosariA. (2013). Pairing learners in pairwork activity. Language Teaching Research, 17, 31–48.
63.
StorchN.WigglesworthG. (2007). Writing tasks: The effects of collaboration. In García Mayo, D.P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157–177). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
64.
StorchN.WigglesworthG. (2010). Students’ engagement with feedback on writing: The role of learner agency/beliefs. In Batstone, R. (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 166–185). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
65.
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.
66.
SwainM. (2001). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and to validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18, 275–302.
67.
SwainM. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
68.
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.
69.
SwainM.WatanabeY. (2013). Collaborative dialogue as a source of learning. In ChapelleC. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
70.
TruongT.A.StorchN. (2007). Investigating group planning in preparation for oral presentations in an EFL class in Vietnam. RELC Journal, 38, 104–124.
71.
van de GuchteM.BraaksmaM.RijlaarsdamG.BimmelP. (2016). Focus on form through task repetition in TBLT. Language Teaching Research, 3, 300–320.
72.
Van LierL. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and authenticity. Harlow: Longman.
73.
VanPattenB. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.
74.
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.
75.
WilliamsJ. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583–625.
76.
WilliamsJ. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325–340.
77.
WillisJ. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Essex: Longman.
78.
YangL. (2016). Languaging in story rewriting tasks by Chinese EFL students. Language Awareness, 25, 241–255.
79.
YuleG.MacdonaldD. (1990). Resolving referential conflicts in L2 Interaction: The effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language Learning, 40, 539–556.
