Little is known about young CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) learners’ attention to formal aspects of the target language when engaged in collaborative task-based interaction. Previous research on language-related episodes (LREs) with other populations indicates that certain variables (e.g. target language proficiency or pair formation method) may play a role in the production of LREs. This study investigates the amount, types and resolution of LREs produced by primary education CLIL learners in a collaborative picture-ordering + story-telling task depending on two variables – L2 English proficiency (grade 5 dyads vs. grade 6 dyads) and pairing method (proficiency-matched dyads vs. student self-selected dyads). Findings indicate that young CLIL learners’ interactive behaviour in L2 English, at least in terms of LRE production, does not differ as a consequence of target language proficiency, whereas pair formation method exerts some influence, self-selected pairs producing and resolving more meaning-based LREs. No differences were found for form-focused LREs.
AdamsR. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 29–52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
AdamsR. (2006). L2 tasks and orientation to form a role for modality?ITL: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 152, 7–34.
3.
AdamsR.Ross-FeldmanL. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form? In BelcherD.HirvelaA. (Eds.), The oral/literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking/writing connections (pp. 243–267). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
4.
AzkaraiA.García MayoM.P. (2015). Task-modality and L1 use in EFL oral interaction. Language Teaching Research, 19, 550–571.
5.
AzkaraiA.García MayoM.P. (2017). Task repetition effects on L1 use in EFL child task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 480–495.
6.
BasterrecheaM.García MayoM.P. (2013). Language-related episodes (LREs) 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.
7.
BasterrecheaM.LeeserM. (2019). Language-related episodes and learner proficiency during collaborative dialogue in CLIL. Language Awareness, 28, 97–113.
8.
BensonC.PavittJ.JenkinsM. (2005). The use of dictogloss to encourage discussion of language use. Edinburgh Working Papers, 14, 1–17.
9.
CollinsL.MuñozC. (2016). The foreign language classroom: Current perspectives and future considerations. TheModern Language Journal, 100, 133–147.
10.
CoyleD. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Toward a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 543–562.
11.
Dalton-PufferC. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics31, 182–204.
12.
Dalton-PufferC.LlinaresA.LorenzoF.NikulaT. (2014). ‘You can stand under my umbrella’: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. Applied Linguistics, 35, 213–218.
13.
García MayoM.P. (2002a). The effectiveness of two form-focused tasks in advanced EFL pedagogy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 156–175.
14.
García MayoM.P. (2002b). Interaction in advanced EFL pedagogy: A comparison of form-focused activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 323–341.
15.
García MayoM.P. (2017). Introduction. In García MayoM.P. (Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research insights (pp. xiii–xxiii). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
16.
García MayoM.P.AzkaraiA. (2016). EFL task-based interaction: Does task modality impact language-related episodes? In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction in second language learning (pp. 241–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
17.
García MayoM.P.Hidalgo GordoM.A. (2017). L1 use among young EFL mainstream and CLIL learners in task-supported interaction. System, 67, 132–145.
18.
García MayoM.P.Imaz AguirreA. (2019). Task modality and pair formation method: Their impact on patterns of interaction and LREs among EFL primary school children. System, 80, 165–175.
19.
García MayoM.P.LázaroA. (2015). Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings. System, 54, 40–54.
20.
Gutiérrez MangadoJ.Martínez AdriánM. (2018). CLIL at the linguistic interfaces. International Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Education, 6, 85–112.
KimY. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 114–130.
23.
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.
24.
KowalM.SwainM. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73–93.
25.
LaPierreD. (1994). Language output in a cooperative learning setting: Determining its effects on second language learning. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
26.
LeeserM.J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative Dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.
27.
LongM.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In RitchieW.C.BhatiaT.K. (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Volume 2: Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.
28.
LysterR. (2015). Using form-focused tasks to investigate language across the immersion curriculum. System, 54, 4–13.
29.
MackeyA. (Ed.). (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
MackeyA.GooJ. (2012). Interaction approach in second language acquisition. In ChappelleC. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 2748–2758). Chichester: Wiley.
31.
MacWhinneyB. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. 3rd edition.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
MalmqvistA. (2005). How does group discussion in reconstruction tasks affect written language output?Language Awareness, 14, 128–141.
33.
Martínez AdriánM.Gutiérrez MangadoJ. (2015a). Is CLIL instruction beneficial in terms of general proficiency and specific areas of grammar?International Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Education, 3, 51–76.
34.
Martínez AdriánM.Gutiérrez MangadoJ. (2015b). L1 use, lexical richness, accuracy and complexity in CLIL and non-CLIL learners. Atlantis, 37, 175–200.
35.
McDonoughK.SunithamW. (2009). Collaborative dialogue between Thai EFL learners during self-access computer activities. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 231–254.
36.
Milla MeleroR.García MayoM.P. (2014). Corrective feedback episodes in oral interaction: A comparison of a CLIL and an EFL classroom. International Journal of English Studies, 14, 1–20.
37.
MozaffariS.H. (2017). Comparing student-selected and teacher-assigned pairs on collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research, 21, 496–516.
38.
MuñozC. (2017). The development of language awareness at the transition from primary to secondary school. In García MayoM.P. (Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research insights (pp. 49–68). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
39.
NiuR. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18, 384–402.
40.
PhilpJ.WalterS.BasturkmenH. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: What factors foster a focus on form?Language Awareness, 19, 261–279.
41.
PinterA. (2007). Some benefits of peer-peer interaction: 10-year-old children practicing with a communication task. Language Teaching Research, 11, 189–207.
42.
Roehr-BrackinK. (2018). Metalinguistic awareness and second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
43.
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.
44.
RussellM. (2010). The formation of effective work groups within a FE classroom. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 20, 286–305.
45.
StorchN. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pairwork. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.
46.
StorchN.AldosariA. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17, 31–48.
47.
SwainM. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In GookG.SeidlhoferB. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48.
SwainM. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. DoughtyC.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
SwainM.LapkinS. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
50.
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). New York: Longman.
51.
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.
52.
WilliamsJ. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 51, 303–346.
53.
WilliamsJ. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29, 325–340.
