Task modality (oral vs. writing) has been found to affect the production, nature and resolution of the language-related episodes (LREs) produced by adult learners in collaborative interaction, a finding also attested in very recent and still limited research with young learners, a population that deserves greater attention in the literature. Besides, previous research has not yet considered the incorporation of LREs in the final output of both oral and written tasks. Nor has it controlled for the differential levels of accuracy that the oral vs. the written modality demand, or the opportunity for revising the output equally in both modalities. Besides, little is known about learners’ motivation towards tasks of different modality. This article fills these gaps by examining the effect of task-modality on the production of LREs by 10- to 12-year-old schoolchildren performing an oral+writing task and an oral+editing task, as well as its effect on their task motivation. Task modality effects were evinced in terms of nature and incorporation of LREs, the written mode leading to greater focus on form and incorporation of accurately resolved LREs. The possibility of editing the oral output resulted in enhanced target-likeness of resolved LREs. As for task motivation, learners perceived both tasks as equally motivating.
AdamsR.Ross-FeldmanL. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form? In BelcherD.HirvelaA. (Eds.), The oral–literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking, writing, and other media interactions (pp. 243–265). The University of Michigan Press.
2.
Alegría de la ColinaA.García MayoM.P. (2009). Oral interaction in task-based EFL learning: The use of the L1 as a cognitive tool. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 325–345.
3.
Al KhalilM.K. (2016). Insights from measurement of task-related motivation. In MackeyA.MarsdenE. (Eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS repository of instruments for research into second languages (pp. 243–262). Routledge.
4.
Arratibel-IrazustaI.Martínez-AdriánM. (2018). The use of previously known languages in the oral production of L3 English learners: A pseudolongitudinal study. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6, 229–254.
5.
Arratibel-IrazustaI.Martínez-AdriánM. (2019). The use of communication strategies in L3 English CLIL learners. In Gutiérrez-MangadoM.J.Martínez-AdriánM.Gallardo-del-PuertoF. (Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence: From empirical evidence to classroom practice. Springer.
6.
AzkaraiA. (2015). L1 use in EFL task-based interaction? A matter of gender. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3, 159–179.
7.
AzkaraiA.KopinskaM. (2020). Young EFL learners and collaborative writing: A study on patterns of interaction, engagement in LREs and task motivation. System, 9, 102338.
8.
BaleghizadehS.FarheshS. (2014). The impact of pair work on EFL learners’ motivation. MEXTESOL Journal, 38, 1–11.
9.
BasterrecheaM.García MayoM.P. (2013). Language-related episodes during collaborative tasks: A comparison of CLIL and EFL learners. In McDonoughK.MackeyA. (Eds.), Interaction in diverse educational settings (pp. 25–43). John Benjamins.
10.
CalzadaA.García MayoM.P. (2020). Child EFL learners’ attitudes towards a collaborative writing task: An exploratory study. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 2, 52–72.
11.
CoyleY.Roca de LariosJ. (2014). Exploring the role played by error correction and models on children’s reported noticing and output production in a L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 451–485.
12.
DörnyeiZ.KormosJ. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4, 275–300.
13.
Fernández DobaoA. (2014). Attention to form in collaborative writing tasks: Comparing pair and small group interaction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 70, 158–187.
14.
Gallardo-del-PuertoF.Martínez-AdriánM. (in press). Task modality effects on young learners’ language related episodes in collaborative dialogue. RESLA.
15.
García MayoM.P. (2002). Interaction in advanced EFL pedagogy: A comparison of form-focused activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 323–341.
16.
García MayoM.P. (2017). Introduction. In García MayoM.P. (Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school (pp. xiii–xxiii). Multilingual Matters.
17.
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: Research agenda and pedagogical potential (pp. 241–266). John Benjamins.
18.
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.
19.
García MayoM.P.Hidalgo GordoM.A. (2017). L1 Use among young EFL mainstream and CLIL learners in task-supported interaction. System, 67, 132–145.
20.
García MayoM.P.Lázaro IbarrolaA. (2015). Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings. System, 54, 40–54.
21.
García MayoM.P.ZeitlerN. (2017). Lexical language-related episodes in pair and small group work. International Journal of English Studies, 17, 61–82.
22.
GassS.MackeyA. (2007). Input, interaction and output in second language acquisition. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175–200). Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
GassS.BehneyJ.PlonskyL. (2013). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. 4th edition.Routledge.
24.
Gutiérrez-MangadoM.J.BasterrecheaM. (submitted). Investigating the effect of task modality on the production of LREs by young learners.
25.
IBM Corp. (2010). IBM SPSS statistics for windows: Version 19.0. IBM Corp.
26.
JulkunenK. (2001). Situation- and task-specific motivation in foreign language learning. In DörnyeiZ.SchmidtR. (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 29–42). University of Hawaii Press.
27.
KopinskaM.AzkaraiA. (2020). Exploring young EFL learners’ motivation: Individual vs. pair work on dictogloss tasks. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10, 607–630.
28.
KuikenF.VedderI. (2012). Speaking and writing tasks and their effects on second language performance. In GassS.M.MackeyA. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 364–377). Routledge.
29.
LeeserM.J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.
30.
LongM.H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.
31.
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). Academic Press.
32.
Martínez-AdriánM. (2020). ¿Los juntamos? A study of L1 use in interactional strategies in CLIL vs. non-CLIL primary school learners. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 58, 1–27.
33.
McWhinneyB. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. 3rd edition.Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
MozaffariS.H. (2016). Comparing student-selected and teacher-assigned pairs on collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research, 21, 496–516.
35.
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). Multilingual Matters.
36.
MylesF. (2013). Theoretical approaches. In HerschensohnJ.Young-ScholtenM. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 47–70). Cambridge University Press.
37.
NiuR. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18, 384–402.
38.
OliverR. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pairwork. Language Learning, 50, 119–151.
39.
OliverR.AzkaraiA. (2017). Review of child second language acquisition (SLA): Examining theories and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 62–76.
40.
OliverR.BogachenkoT. (2019). Teacher perceptions and use of tasks in school ESL classrooms. In SamudaV.Van den BrandenK.BygateM. (Eds.), TBLT as a researched pedagogy (pp. 72–95). John Benjamins.
41.
PayantC.KimY.J. (2019). Impact of task modality on collaborative dialogue among plurilingual learners: A classroom-based study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22, 614–627.
42.
PinterA. (2007). Some benefits of peer-peer interaction: 10-year-old children practising with a communication task. Language Teaching Research, 11, 189–207.
43.
Roehr-BrackinK. (2018). Metalinguistic awareness and second language acquisition. Routledge.
44.
Roehr-BrackinK.TellierA. (2019). The role of language-analytic ability in children’s instructed second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 1111–1131.
45.
Ross-FeldmanL. (2005). Task-based interactions between second language learners: Exploring the role of gender. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
46.
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 University Press.
47.
ShakJ.GardnerS.2008. Young learner perspectives on four focus-on-form tasks. Language Teaching Research, 12, 387–408.
48.
StorchN. (1998). Comparing second language learners’ attention to form across tasks. Language Awareness, 7, 176–191.
49.
StorchN. (2001). Comparing ESL learners’ attention to grammar on three different classroom tasks. RELC Journal, 32, 104–124.
50.
StorchN.AldosariA. (2010). Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14, 355–375.
51.
StorchN.AldosariA. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17, 31–48.
52.
SwainM. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensive input and comprehensible output in its development. In GassS.MaddenC. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House.
53.
SwainM. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In CookG.SeidlhoferB. (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford University Press.
54.
SwainM. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediation acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In LantolfJ.P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press.
55.
SwainM. (2005). The output hypothesis: theory and research. In HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Lawrence Erlbaum.
56.
SwainM.LapkinS. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
57.
SwainM.WatanabeY. (2013). Languaging: Collaborative dialogue as a source of second language learning. In ChapelleC. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell.
58.
TellierA.Roehr-BrackinK. (2017). Raising children’s metalinguistic awareness to enhance classroom second language learning. In García MayoM.P. (Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research insights (pp. 22–48). Multilingual Matters.
59.
UCLES. (2014). Key English test for schools. Cambridge University Press.
60.
Van GorpK.BogaertN. (2006). Developing language tasks for primary and secondary education. In van den BrandenK. (Ed.), Task-based language education: From theory to practice (pp. 76–105). Cambridge University Press.
61.
VillarealI.Munarriz-IbarrolaM. (2021). ‘Together we do better’: The effect of pair and group on young EFL learners’ written texts and attitudes. In García MayoM. (Ed.), Working collaboratively in second/foreign language learning (pp. 89–116). De Gruyter Mouton.
62.
WilliamsJ. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583–625.
63.
WolffD. (2000). Some reflections on the importance of writing in foreign language learning. In PlayI.SchneiderK.P. (Eds.), Language use, language acquisition and language history (pp. 213–226). WVT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
