Researchers and teachers often invoke context to explain their particular research/teaching issues. However, definitions of context vary widely and the direct impact of the context is often unexplained. Based on research showing contextual differences in second language (L2) learner beliefs and interactional behaviors, the current project compared those factors in two distinct contexts: Chilean English as a foreign language (EFL) (n = 19) and Australian English as a second language (ESL) (n = 27) contexts. In this project, the learners completed a set of group discussion activities as part of their regular class work. They then completed a questionnaire pertaining to L2 motivation, perceptions of group work, and first language (L1) use. The group interaction data were analysed for: (1) the frequency of language-related episodes (LREs); (2) the initiator of LREs (self or other); and (3) L1 use for resolving LREs. The results showed that the EFL learners produced significantly more LREs. The EFL learners also used more L1 to resolve LREs. Factor analyses of the questionnaire data, conducted within- and across-contexts, showed notable differences in the two contexts as well. However, the findings of learner beliefs did not necessarily account for the differential classroom behaviors. We discuss our findings by reference to the socio-linguistic and socio-educational statuses of English in the two contexts as well as approaches to instruction which together shaped the learners’ differential needs and purposes for learning the L2.
AzkaraiA.OliverR. (2019). Negative feedback on task repetition: ESL vs. EFL child settings. The Language Learning Journal, 47, 269–280.
2.
BaleghizadehS.GoldouzE.Yousefpoori-NaeimM. (2016). What grammar activities do ELT workbooks focus on? In TomlinsonB. (Ed.), SLA research and materials development for language learning (pp. 153–165). New York: Routledge.
3.
BallingerS.LysterR.SterzukA.GeneseeF. (2017). Context-appropriate crosslinguistic pedagogy. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 5, 30–57.
4.
BarahonaM. (2016). Challenges and accomplishments of ELT at primary level in Chile: Towards the aspiration of becoming a bilingual country. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24, 1–24.
5.
BaraltM.GilabertR.RobinsonP. (Eds.). (2014). Task sequencing and instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury.
6.
BaraltM.Gurzynski-WeissL.KimY. (2016). The effects of task complexity and classroom environment on learners’ engagement with the language. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 209–239). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
7.
BernsM. (2015). Pedagogy and World Englishes: The legacy of Yamuna Kachru. World Englishes, 34, 22–30.
8.
CaoY.PhilpJ. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, 34, 480–493.
9.
CollinsL.MuñozC. (2016). The foreign language classroom: Current perspectives and future considerations. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 133–147.
10.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
CsizérK.LukácsG. (2010). The comparative analysis of motivation, attitudes and selves: The case of English and German in Hungary. System, 38, 1–13.
12.
de St LégerD.StorchN. (2009). Learners’ perceptions and attitudes: Implications for willingness to communicate in an L2 classroom. System, 37, 269–285.
13.
DewaeleJ.-M. (2017). Psychological dimensions and foreign language anxiety. In LoewenS.SatoM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 433–450). New York: Routledge.
14.
DiCamillaF.J.AntónM. (2012). Functions of L1 in the collaborative interaction of beginning and advanced second language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22, 160–188.
15.
DörnyeiZ. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 137–158). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
16.
DörnyeiZ.KormosJ. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4, 275–300.
17.
DörnyeiZ.KubanyiovaM. (2014). Motivating learners, motivating teachers: Building vision in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
DörnyeiZ.RyanS. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York: Routledge.
19.
DörnyeiZ.TaguchiT. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.
20.
DörnyeiZ.TsengW.-T. (2009). Motivational processing in interactional tasks. In MackeyA.PolioC. (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 117–134). New York: Routledge.
21.
EllisR. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
Fernández DobaoA.BlumA. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners’ attitudes and perceptions. System, 41, 365–378.
23.
García MayoM.P.HidalgoM.A. (2017). L1 use among young EFL mainstream and CLIL learners in task-supported interaction. System, 67, 132–145.
24.
García MayoM.P.Imaz AgirreA. (2019). Task modality and pair formation method: Their impact on patterns of interaction and LREs among EFL primary school children. System, 80, 165–175.
25.
GelmanA. (2015). The connection between varying treatment effects and the crisis of unreplicable research: A Bayesian perspective. Journal of Management, 41, 632–643.
26.
GillhamB. (2008). Developing a questionnaire. 2nd edition. New York: Continuum.
27.
HallG.CookG. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 45, 271–308.
JohnsonD.W.JohnsonR.T.RosethC.ShinT.S. (2014). The relationship between motivation and achievement in interdependent situations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44, 622–633.
30.
JolliffeI. (2002). Principal component analysis. New York: Willey & Sons.
31.
KachruB.B. (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures. 2nd edition. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
32.
KormosJ.KiddleT. (2013). The role of socio-economic factors in motivation to learn English as a foreign language: The case of Chile. System, 41, 399–412.
33.
KormosJ.PréfontaineY. (2017). Affective factors influencing fluent performance: French learners’ appraisals of second language speech tasks. Language Teaching Research, 21, 699–716.
34.
LeowR.P.HsiehH.C.MorenoN. (2008). Attention to form and meaning revisited. Language Learning, 58, 665–695.
35.
LevineG.S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 343–364.
36.
LiQ. (2014). Differences in the motivation of Chinese learners of English in a foreign and second language context. System, 42, 451–461.
37.
LittlewoodW.YuB. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching, 44, 64–77.
38.
LlinaresA.LysterR. (2014). The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: A comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms. The Language Learning Journal, 42, 181–194.
39.
LoewenS.SatoM. (2018). State-of-the-arts article: Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51, 285–329.
40.
MacIntyreP.D. (2016). So far so good: An overview of positive psychology and its contribution to SLA. In Gabryś-BarkerD.GałajdaD. (Eds.), Positive psychology perspectives on foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 3–20). New York: Springer.
41.
MacIntyreP.D.LegattoJ.J. (2011). A dynamic system approach to willingness to communicate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing affect. Applied Linguistics, 32, 149–171.
42.
MacIntyreP.D.BakerS.C.ClémentR.ConrodS. (2001). Willingness to communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369–388.
43.
MacIntyreP.D.DörnyeiZ.ClémentR.NoelsK.A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.
44.
MarsdenE.Morgan-ShortK.TrofimovichP.EllisN.C. (2018). Introducing registered reports at Language Learning: Promoting transparency, replication, and a synthetic ethic in the language sciences. Language Learning, 68, 309–320.
45.
MatsumotoM. (2015). Motivational changes and their affecting factors among students from different cultural backgrounds. In ChanW.M.BhattS.K.NagamiM.WalkerI. (Eds.), Culture and foreign language education: Insights from research and implications for the practice (pp. 223–244). Boston, MA: de Gruyter.
46.
McCarthyM.McCartenJ.SandifordH. (2008). Touchstone 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
MelchersG.ShawP. (2013). World Englishes. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.
48.
Morgan-ShortK.HeilJ.Botero-MoriartyA.EbertS. (2012). Allocation of attention to second language form and meaning: Issues of think-alouds and depth of processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 659–685.
49.
Morgan-ShortK.MarsdenE.HeilJ., et al. (2018). Multisite replication in second language acquisition research: Attention to form during listening and reading comprehension. Language Learning, 68, 392–437.
50.
MurrayD. (2013). Higher education constraints on innovation. In HylandK.WongL.L. (Eds.), Innovation and change in English language education (pp. 186–200). New York: Routledge.
51.
O’ConnorB.P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 396–402.
52.
Open Science Collaboration (OSC). (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, aac4716.
53.
PapiM.TeimouriY. (2014). Language learner motivational types: A cluster analysis study. Language Learning, 64, 493–525.
54.
PhilpJ.AdamsR.IwashitaN. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York: Routledge.
55.
PhilpJ.DuchesneS. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72.
56.
PlonskyL.OswaldF.L. (2017). Multiple regression as a flexible alternative to ANOVA in L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 579–592.
57.
PouporeG. (2016). Measuring group work dynamics and its relation with L2 learners’ task motivation and language production. Language Teaching Research, 20, 719–740.
58.
PouporeG. (2018). A complex systems investigation of group work dynamics in L2 interactive tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 350–370.
59.
QiuX.LoY.Y. (2017). Content familiarity, task repetition and Chinese EFL learners’ engagement in second language use. Language Teaching Research, 21, 681–698.
60.
RantaL.MeckelborgA. (2013). How much exposure to English do international graduate students really get? Measuring language use in a naturalistic setting. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69, 1–33.
61.
RichardsJ.C.RodgersT.S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. 3rd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
62.
SatoM. (2011). Constitution of form-orientation: Contributions of context and explicit knowledge to learning from recasts. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 1–28.
63.
SatoM. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 611–633.
64.
SatoM. (2017). Interaction mindsets, interactional behaviors, and L2 development: An affective-social-cognitiv model. Language Learning, 67, 249–283.
65.
SatoM. (2020). Metacognitive instruction for collaborative interaction: The process and product of self-regulated learning in the Chilean EFL context. In LambertC.OliverR. (Eds.), Using tasks in second language teaching: Practice in diverse contexts (pp. 215–236). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
66.
SatoM.BallingerS. (2016). Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
67.
SatoM.LoewenS. (2019a). Towards evidence-based second language pedagogy: Research proposal and pedagogical recommendations. In SatoM.LoewenS. (Eds.), Evidence-based second language pedagogy: A collection of Instructed Second Language Acquisition studies (pp. 1–24). Abingdon: Routledge.
68.
SatoM.LoewenS. (2019b). Methodological strengths, challenges, and joys of classroom-based quasi-experimental research: Metacognitive instruction and corrective feedback. In DeKeyserR.Botana PrietoG. (Eds.), Doing SLA research with implications for the classroom: Reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability (pp. 31–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
69.
SatoM.LysterR. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 591–262.
70.
SatoM.ViverosP. (2016). Interaction or collaboration? Group dynamics in the foreign language classroom. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 91–112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
71.
SchweinsbergM.MadanN.VianelloM., et al. (2016). The pipeline project: Pre-publication independent replications of a single laboratory's research pipeline. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 55–67.
72.
SheenY. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.
73.
SimardD.JeanG. (2011). An exploration of L2 teachers’ use of pedagogical interventions devised to draw L2 learners’ attention to form. Language Learning, 61, 759–785.
74.
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.
75.
StorchN. (2009). The nature of pair interaction: Learners’ interaction in an ESL class: its nature and impact on grammatical development. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.
76.
StorchN. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
77.
StorchN.SatoM. (2019). Comparing the same task in different L2 learning contexts: An Activity Theory perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30, 50–69.
78.
StroebeW.StrackF. (2014). The alleged crisis and the illusion of exact replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 59–71.
79.
SwainM.LapkinS. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
80.
TabachnickB.G.FidellL.S. (2016). Using multivariate statistics. 6th edition. Boston, MA: Pearson.
81.
TaguchiT.MagidM.PapiM. (2009). The L2 motivational self system among Japanese, Chinese and Iranian learners of English: A comparative study. In DörnyeiZ.UshiodaE. (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 66–97). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
82.
Van BavelJ.J.Mende-SiedleckiP.BradyW.J.ReineroD.A. (2016). Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 6454–6459.
83.
WiddowsonH.G. (1997). EIL, ESL, EFL: Global issues and local interests. World Englishes, 16, 135–146.
84.
WilliamsJ. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583–625.
85.
YashimaT.MacIntyreP.D.IkedaM. (2018). Situated willingness to communicate in an L2: Interplay of individual characteristics and context. Language Teaching Research, 22, 115–137.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
