What factors shape the collaborative pattern of group interaction during peer feedback in the L2 writing classroom?

Revista Espanola de Linguistica Aplicada

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 618-640

  Yu, Shulin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MACAU   (Macao)

Author keywords

Group interaction; L2 learning; L2 writing; Peer feedback; Small group work

Indexed keywords

EID: 84976468289     PISSN: 02132028     EISSN: 22546774     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/resla.28.2.10yu     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Alanen, R. (2003). A sociocultural approach to young language learners’ beliefs about language learning. In P. Kalaja & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches (pp. 55-85). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-4751-0_3
2. Allen, D., & Mills, A. (in press). The impact of second language proficiency in dyadic peer feedback. Language Teaching Research.
3. Barcelos, A. M. F. (2000). Understanding teachers’ and students’ language learning beliefs in experience: A Deweyan approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. College of Education, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
4. Barcelos, A. M. F. (2003). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs within a Deweyan framework: conflict and influence. In P. Kalaja, & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches (pp. 171-199). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-4751-0_8
5. Barcelos, A. M. F. (2004). Crenças sobre aprendizagem de línguas, lingüística aplicada e ensino de línguas. Linguagem & Ensino, 7(1), 123-156.
6. Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 1-19. DOI: 10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90012-0
7. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques to developing grounded theory (3rd edition). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
8. Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 9-19. DOI: 10.1016/0883-0355(89)90013-X
9. Donato, R. (1988). Beyond group: A psycholinguistic rationale for collective activity in second language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Delaware.
10. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
11. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156. DOI: 10.1080/13639080020028747
12. Fernández-Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40-58. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002
13. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. London: Sage.
15. Jin, L., & Zhu, W. (2010). Dynamic motives in ESL computer-mediated peer response. Computers and Composition, 27, 284-303. DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2010.09.001
16. Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 114-130. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00690.x
17. Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12, 211-234. DOI: 10.1177/1362168807086288
18. Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73-93. DOI: 10.1080/09658416.1994.9959845
19. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Problems of the development of mind. Moscow: Progress.
21. Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37-70). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
22. Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2013). Patterns of computer-mediated interaction in EFLcollaborative writing groups using wikis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 61-82. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2011.631142
23. Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126-141. DOI: 10.1093/applin/4.2.126
24. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In R. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego, CA: Edward Arnold, 413-468.
25. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
26. Negueruela-Azarola, E. (2011). Beliefs as conceptualizing activity: A dialectical approach for the second language classroom. System, 39, 359-369. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2011.07.008
27. Nelson, G., & Murphy, J. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 135-142.
28. Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51-78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29. Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.
30. Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5, 29-53. DOI: 10.1177/136216880100500103
31. Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158 DOI: 10.1111/1467-9922.00179
32. Storch, N. (2004). Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interactions in an ESL class. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(4), 457-480. DOI: 10.3138/cmlr.60.4.457
33. Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 31-48. DOI: 10.1177/1362168812457530
34. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
35. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x
36. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285-304. DOI: 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00006-5
37. Villamil, O., & De Guerrero, M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behaviour. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 51-75. DOI: 10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90015-6
38. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 39-285). New York: Plenum.
40. Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer-peer interaction between L2 learners of different proficiency levels: Their interactions and reflections. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4), 605-35. DOI: 10.3138/cmlr.64.4.605
41. Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445-466. DOI: 10.1177/0265532209104670
42. Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 364-374. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005
43. Yin, R. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York City, NY: Guilford.
44. Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2015). Understanding EFLstudents’ participation in group peer feedback of L2 writing: A case study from an activity theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 572-593. DOI: 10.1177/1362168814541714
45. Zheng, C. (2012). Understanding the learning process of peer feedback activity: An ethnographic study of Exploratory Practice. Language Teaching Research, 16(1) 109-126. DOI: 10.1177/1362168811426248
46. Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 251-276. DOI: 10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00043-1
47. Zhu, W., & Mitchell, D. (2012). Participation in peer response as activity: An examination of peer response stances from an activity theory perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 362-386. DOI: 10.1002/tesq.22