L1 use among young EFL mainstream and CLIL learners in task-supported interaction

Mayo, Marı́a del Pilar Garcı́a; Hidalgo, María Ángeles

doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.05.004

Cited by 53 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Much research has investigated young adults in university contexts; more research on other populations, such as child learners (e.g. García Mayo & de los Ángeles Hidalgo 2017), HL learners (e.g. Bowles et al 2014), refugees with limited L1 literacy (e.g.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interaction and instructed second language acquisition

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interaction is an indispensable component in second language acquisition (SLA). This review surveys the instructed SLA research, both classroom and laboratory-based, that has been conducted primarily within the interactionist approach, beginning with the core constructs of interaction, namely input, negotiation for meaning, and output. The review continues with an overview of specific areas of interaction research. The first investigates interlocutor characteristics, including (a) first language (L1) status, (b) peer interaction, (c) participation structure, (d) second language (L2) proficiency, and (e) individual differences. The second topic is task characteristics, such as task conditions (e.g. information distribution, task goals), task complexity (i.e. simple or complex), and task participation structure (i.e. whole class, small groups or dyads). Next, the review considers various linguistic features that have been researched in relation to interaction and L2 learning. The review then continues with interactional contexts, focusing especially on research into computer-mediated interaction. The review ends with a consideration of methodological issues in interaction research, such as the merits of classroom and lab-based studies, and the various methods for measuring the noticing of linguistic forms during interaction. In sum, research has found interaction to be effective in promoting L2 development; however, there are numerous factors that impact its efficacy.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interaction and instructed second language acquisition

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From a cognitive perspective, the primary latent construct of context is ‘the quality, quantity, and diversity of input’ (Collins & Muñoz, 2016, p. 134) and the opportunity that learners are afforded to use the target language inside and outside the classroom (Ranta & Meckelborg, 2013). From an instructional perspective, what defines context can be the use of the first language (L1) by teachers (Littlewood & Yu, 2011) and/or learners (DiCamilla & Antón, 2012; García Mayo & Hidalgo, 2017). From a sociocultural perspective, context entails a broader understanding of the power hierarchies and expected norms at the local classroom level as well as at the macro, societal or institutional level which shape L2 learning opportunities and outcomes (Storch & Sato, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Context matters: Learner beliefs and interactional behaviors in an EFL vs. ESL context

Sato

Storch

2020

Language Teaching Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…The second phase asked students to tell the story in turns. Picture-ordering plus story-telling tasks have been profusely employed in prior investigations with adults and children for similar purposes (García Mayo & Hidalgo Gordo, 2017;Storch & Aldosari, 2010).…”

Section: Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Task-modality effects on young learners’ language-related episodes in collaborative dialogue

Puerto

Martínez-Adrián

2022

RESLA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In adult learners’ collaborative dialogue, oral+written tasks have been found to promote a greater incidence and resolution of language-related episodes and to demand higher levels of accuracy than oral tasks thanks to the extra time learners have to reflect on their written outcome. No previous studies have tested whether asking learners to attend to accuracy in both modalities would yield similar results. The present study with 23 dyads of young English learners supports the superiority of the oral+written modality in the promotion of learning opportunities, even if learners are encouraged to focus on form in the oral modality, a result reinforced by the incorporation of target-like resolved episodes in the written product. However, the intragroup analysis reveals that young learners focus on meaning in equal terms, present low rates of target-likeness, and do not elaborate their resolutions, all of which can be ascribed to their younger age and developing metalinguistic awareness.

show abstract

L1 use among young EFL mainstream and CLIL learners in task-supported interaction

Cited by 53 publications

References 31 publications

Interaction and instructed second language acquisition

Interaction and instructed second language acquisition

Context matters: Learner beliefs and interactional behaviors in an EFL vs. ESL context

Task-modality effects on young learners’ language-related episodes in collaborative dialogue

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About