[ LLL SIG Website ][ LLL SIG Publications ][ This Issue's Contents ]

Volume 6, Issue 2 [October, 2010]
 

---

Maximizing the potential of peer activities in English classes: Strategy training and language development
Masatoshi Sato
McGill University

Background

Since it was uncovered that second language (L2) learners in Canadian immersion education acquire communicative fluency while lacking accuracy in their language production (Genesee, 1987), the effectiveness of form-focused instruction has been extensively examined in which teachers' intervention plays a key role in drawing the learners' attention to grammatical elements during meaningful communicative activities (Spada & Lightbown, 2008). In this vein, corrective feedback (CF) has proven to be an effective teaching tool because it has the potential to encourage learners to notice the gap in their production and interlanguage (Lyster, 2007). Not only does CF put accuracy development forward but also it has the potential to improve fluency because it pushes learners to practice the target form and thus accelerates the automatization process (see Segalowitz, 2000).

However, this research has predominantly been done in contexts where learners are surrounded by the target language; namely, second language contexts. Drawing on divergent empirical results, some claim that language learning behaviours significantly differ depending on learning contexts (Bialystok, 2001) and consequently context-appropriate pedagogies must be chosen (Dörnyei, 2006). Another contextual variable is where and how a researcher collects data. Considering the fact that classroom-based studies have reported confounding results from laboratory studies (Mackey & Goo, 2007), research should ultimately be conducted in classroom settings in order to obtain ecologically valid results (Ellis, Basturkmen & Loewen, 2001). In addition, CF studies have predominantly focused on interaction between learners and native speakers or teachers. These theoretical and methodological gaps call for a peer interaction study conducted in a classroom in a foreign language context.

Present study

The goal of the present study is to find ways in which peer interaction can be maximized in foreign language classrooms to help learners produce accurate and fluent speech. In addition to lack of opportunity to be exposed to the target language outside the classroom, foreign language learning poses many obstacles that learners and teachers in a second language context do not necessarily have to face (Fotos, 1998; Mitchell & Myles, 2004), especially when Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is to be implemented. For instance, if an adopting society is a test-driven culture, CLT is not likely to meet the demands of students. In such a case, the environment forces classrooms to be more form-oriented, primarily focusing on exam preparation materials (Bardovi-Harlig & Dörnyei, 1998); therefore, both students and teachers tend to prefer working on developing grammatical knowledge and memorizing vocabulary in a decontextualized way. Also, in many contexts, socioeducational culture does not synchronize with the pedagogy developed in Western countries where teacher-student relationships differ considerably: Students' resistance to a teacher whose first language is the same as students' yet who endeavors to conduct CLT in the target language, has been well-documented (e.g., Shamim, 1996). This linguistic and educational environment notoriously produces learners who are functional writers and readers yet poor speakers (Block, 2003), often exacerbated by the grammar-translation methods which do not focus on developing communicative competence (Berns, 1990). That is, despite the fact that CF can facilitate L2 acquisition, there is not much chance to appreciate its effectiveness in many foreign language classrooms.

Given that grammatical knowledge is still crucial, the challenge that learners face is accessing this knowledge and processing it efficiently to produce oral output. More specifically, they need to proceduralize their declarative knowledge so they can access it during spontaneous production (Anderson, 2005). There is ample evidence that proceduralization is the key to successful L2 acquisition and also research has shown that practice facilities this process (see DeKeyser, 2007 for pyschological and Ullman, 2001 for neurocognitive evidence). To achieve this goal in a foreign language environment, learners have to make the best use of whatever they have around them including their peers as a learning source, considering the fact that communicating in the target language is one of the most crucial elements to acquire a language.

While peer interaction has proven its effectiveness for L2 development from various perspectives including cognitive (Sato & Lyster, 2007), psycholinguistic (Kormos, 1999), psychological (Dörnyei, 1997), and sociocultural (Foster & Ohta, 2005), it has certain weaknesses. For instance, learners often try to avoid negotiation and focus solely on completing a given task (Foster, 1998). Also, it is difficult to encourage them to produce a target linguistic structure because they do not have guidance (Toth, 2008). To overcome these weaknesses, the current study explores a new pedagogy and investigates its effectiveness and feasibility: teaching learners how to provide feedback to each other during communicative activities. Although a considerable amount of studies have investigated various ways to draw learners' attention to form, including teachers' CF (e.g., Ammar & Spada, 2006; Lyster & Izquierdo, 2009), to date to my knowledge, no studies have sought the possibility of transforming learners into CF providers. The following research questions are explored:

1. What happens to the quality of peer interaction when second language learners are taught how to provide feedback to each other during communicative activities?
2. Do learners benefit from the instruction and develop oral fluency?
3. Is the pedagogy feasible in classroom dynamics?

Methodology

This classroom study was conducted at a university in Japan. Four intact second-year English classes (N = 160) were assigned to one of the four groups: Class A and B received feedback instruction (Class A in the form of prompts and Class B in the form of recasts) and engaged in communicative peer interaction activities. Class C received the peer interaction activities only. Class D served as the control group whereby the students continued with regular classes. These classes were held once a week for one hour and a half. The researcher was present in the classes as an assistant instructor. From Week 2 onward, students in Class A and B learned how to provide feedback to each other and practiced CF, whereas students in Class C participated in the same activities but without the CF instruction for the same amount of time (50 minutes in every class; 6.5 hours in total). Pre- and posttests (i.e., a picture description test) were administered to all classes in Week 1 and Week 10. In order to examine the change in the use of CF, interactional tests (i.e., a decision-making test) were administered in Week 1, Week 6, and Week 10. In addition, questionnaires were administered to investigate learners' perception of communicative activities, peer interaction, and peer feedback.

Preliminary findings

Based on Lennon's (1990) method, two types of speech rates were obtained from the pretests: (a) words per minute (Speech Rate 1) and (b) words per minute after excluding repetitions, self-corrections, and filled (e.g., um, ah) and unfilled pauses (Speech Rate 2). As for accuracy scores, the number of clauses was counted and proportions of error free clauses were calculated (i.e., overall accuracy; Foster & Skehan, 1996). Correlational analyses revealed that the three variables were significantly correlated: Speech Rate 1 and Speech Rate 2 (r = 0.53; df = 158; p < .000); Speech Rate 1 and Accuracy (r = 0.21; df = 158; p = .008); Speech Rate 2 and Accuracy (r = 0.29; df = 158; p < .000). These results indicate that the less a learner produces repetitions, self-corrections, and pauses, the more his or her speech rate increases. Also, he or she speaks more accurately than learners who speak slower with more repetitions and self-corrections.

From the decision-making tests, the frequency of interactional moves (i.e., CF) was investigated. Analysis of 3-minute interactions of 80 pairs revealed that learners barely provided CF to each other. As for CF that indicates message comprehensibility problems (i.e., negotiation of meaning), the individual average frequency was 0.25 for the 3 minutes. The occurrence of CF that points out grammatical problems (i.e., negotiation of form) was observed an average of 0.02 times. Posttest data are yet to come, which examine, after one academic semester, how their accuracy and fluency develop, how their CF skills improve, and how their perception changes.

Remarks

Skill acquisition theory is a well-developed theory in Psychology (see Anderson, 2005). It explains how declarative knowledge gradually shifts to procedural knowledge in our brain when we both engage in repetitive practice and are provided with the right kind of corrective feedback at the right moment during that practice. More specifically, humans' cognitive skills start from knowledge of what and develop into knowledge of how; for instance, how to play the piano or how to drive a stick-shift car. This idea coincides with foreign language learning where we often start from learning grammar rules and memorizing vocabulary items. Drawing on this line of thinking, my study examines the effectiveness of teaching corrective feedback to promote practice and to give and receive feedback.

Not only does corrective feedback have a learning effect but also it functions as a communication strategy. One vital component that many Japanese learners lack is how to carry out natural conversation in the target language. If corrective feedback can be taught, that is, if learners can become able to voluntarily help each other, it can be hypothesized that other communication skills are also learnable as research on strategy training has shown (see Cohen, 1998; Lai, 2009). Such strategies include how to take turns, how to initiate conversations, or how to take emotional temperature, all of which are skills that learners can use in various contexts in the future. Important to note here, however, is that not many studies have examined whether or not strategies contribute to language development.

In addition, combining pair or group activities with instruction on how to give corrective feedback to each other provides learners with opportunities to acquire collaborative and leadership skills. Some scholars have made a link between language learning and group dynamics based on psychological theories (see Dörnyei, 1997). They claim that peer interaction creates a positively interdependent environment whereby learners share responsibilities in a cooperative manner. Also, by learning how to take responsibilities, they develop leadership skills. These skills too are required to succeed in real-life situations even where the language of communication is not a second language.

To conclude, it is an unfortunate but challenging fact that English classes in Japan have many problems. These include: many classes are too big with more than 40 students (Nolasco & Arthur, 1990); the language of instruction is Japanese, rather than the foreign language being taught (O'Donnell, 2005); and there is a hierarchical relationship between the teacher and students (Butler, 2005). All of these impede communicative interaction in class. Not to mention, none of these problems is easy to resolve. It seems to me that one approach to tackle these issues is to maximize peer interaction activities by teaching them learning strategies in systematic and sustainable ways. In so doing, Japanese students not only improve their language skills but also other social skills that they can use for their lives. This ecological remedy may eventually solve other problems in the future as well when the current students become good second language speakers, communicators, collaborators, and leaders.

References

Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543-574.

Anderson, J. (2005). Cognitive psychology and its implications (6 ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatics violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 233-262.

Berns, M. (1990). 'Second' and 'foreign' in second language acquisition/foreign language learning: A sociolinguistic perspective. In B. VanPatten & J. Lee (Eds.), Second language acquisition/Foreign language learning (pp. 3-11). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Bialystok, E. (2001). Metalinguistic dimensions of bilingual language processing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 169-181.

Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Butler, Y. (2005). Comparative perspectives towards communicative activities among elementary school teachers in South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. Language Teaching Research, 9(4), 423-446

Cohen, A. (1998). Second language learning and language use strategies: Defining terms. In A. Cohen (Ed.), Strategies in learning and using a second language (pp. 3-23). New York: Longman.

Dörnyei, Z. (1997). Psychological processes in cooperative language learning: Group dynamics and motivation. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 482-493.

Dörnyei, Z. (2006). Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 42-68.

DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281-318.

Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 1-23.

Foster, P., & Ohta, A. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 402-430.

Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(3), 293-323.

Fotos, S. (1998). Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 52(4), 301-307.

Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Kormos, J. (1999). Monitoring and self-repair in L2. Language Learning, 49(2), 303-342.

Lam, W. (2009). Examining the effects of metacognitive strategy instruction on ESL group discussions: A synthesis of approaches. Language Teaching Research, 13(2), 129-150.

Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40(3), 387-417.

Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59(2), 453-498.

Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 407-452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theory (2 ed.). London: Edward Arnold.

Nolasco, R., & Arthur, L. (1990). You try doing it with a class of forty. In R. Rossner & R. Bolitho (Eds.), Currents of change in English language teaching (pp. 188-195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

O'Donnell, K. (2005). Japanese secondary English teachers: Negotiation of educational roles in the face of curricular reform. Language, culture and curriculum, 18(3), 300-315.

Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of interlocutor vs. feedback types. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 123-142). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Segalowitz, N. (2000). Automaticity and attentional skill in fluent performance. In H. Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives on fluency (pp. 200-219). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Shamim, F. (1996). Learner resistance to innovation in classroom methodology. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 105-121). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. (2008). Form-focused instruction: isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 181-207.

Toth, P. (2008). Teacher- and learner-led discourse in task-based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning, 58(2), 237-283.

Ullman, M. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92, 231-270.