EXPLORING PEER PERCEPTIONS OF MIXED-AGE PEER INTERACTIONS IN MIXED-AGE SECONDARY SCHOOL EFL CLASSROOMS IN GERMANY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46827/ejfl.v0i0.2223Keywords:
mixed-age peer interaction, peer perceptions, EFL, classroom tasks, sociocultural theoryAbstract
Research on peer interaction has shown that how peers perceive one another plays a role in how they interact with one another during classroom tasks, thus influencing their pair dynamics and learning. This study investigated peer interactions in three mixed-age English as a foreign language (EFL) secondary school classrooms in Germany. Mixed-age is increasingly used, but is under-researched in language classrooms. Ten mixed-age pairs worked together on ten regular classroom tasks which were audio-recorded. After the unit of work, individual interviews were conducted in order to elicit learners’ perceptions of their interactions. The findings suggest that rather than perceptions of differing ages, it is the relationship among peers, perceptions of the partner’s proficiency and learners’ goals which greatly contribute to positive perceptions of learners’ interactions and impact on how peers interact with one another. However, findings also reveal traces of elder learners exercising authority and control over their younger partners.
Article visualizations:
References
Ahearn, L. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109-137.
Edley, N., & Litosseliti, E. (2010). Contemplating interviews and focus groups. In Litosseliti, L. (Eds.), Research methods in linguistics (pp. 155-179). Continuum Intl Pub Group.
Fernández Dobao, A., & A. Blum. 2013. Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners’ attitudes and perceptions. System, 41, 365-378.
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.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. 1994. Using collaborative language production tasks to promote learners’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3, 73–93.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner Proficiency and Focus on Form during Collaborative Dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55-81.
Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2017). Explaining dynamic interactions in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 21, 96–120.
Lindström, E., & Lindahl, E. (2011). The Effect of Mixed-Age Classes in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(2), 121-144.
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Peer interactive tasks and assisted performance in classroom language learning. In A.S. Ohta, Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese, (pp. 73-128). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Samuda V., & Bygate M. (2008). Tasks in Second Language Learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and learners’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.
Swain, M. (2011). The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning. Language Teaching, 46(2), 195-207. Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M., & Deters, P. (2007). “New” Mainstream SLA Theory: Expanded and Enriched. The Modern Language Journal, 91. 820–836.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, (37), 285– 304.
Swain, M., & Miccoli, L. S. (1994). Learning in a content-based, collaboratively structured course: The experience of an adult ESL learner. TESL Canada Journal. 12(1), 15 –28.
van Lier, L. (2008). Agency in the classroom. In J.P. Lantolf and M.E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Language (pp. 163-188). London: Equinox.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer-Peer Interaction between L2 Learners of Different Proficiency Levels: Their Interactions and Reflections. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4), 605-635.
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121-142.
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2008). Perception of Learner Proficiency: Its Impact on the Interaction Between an ESL Learner and Her Higher and Lower Proficiency Partners. Language Awareness, 17(2), 115-130.
Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2007). Doing Task-based Teaching: Oxford University Press.
Young, A., & Tedick, D. (2016). Collaborative dialogue in a two-way Spanish/English immersion classroom: Does heterogeneous grouping promote peer linguistic scaffolding? In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 135-160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Yule, G., & Macdonald, D. (1990). Resolving referential conflicts in L2 interaction: The effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language Learning, 40, 539–556.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
