THE EFFECT OF INTERACTIONAL STRATEGY TRAINING ON PEER COLLABORATION AND INTERACTION PATTERNS

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 33 Sayı: 2, 701 - 718, 26.05.2023

Sibel Tosun , Nuray Alagözlü

https://doi.org/10.18069/firatsbed.1271309

Öz

This study aims to examine the impact of interactional strategy training on dyadic interaction patterns during peer interaction. 28 undergraduate students between the ages of 18 and 22 participated in the study. The participants consisted of two groups: the experimental group, which received interactional strategy training, and the control group, which performed the same pair tasks as the experimental group but did not receive strategy training. The study employed a mixed-methods research design collecting quantitative and qualitative data through pre-, post- and delayed-post speaking tasks, self-evaluation forms, and semi-structured interviews. Transcripts of pre-, post-, and delayed-post tasks were analyzed to identify interaction patterns and enumerate the interaction strategies used by the dyads. Analysis of dyadic interaction reveals that training in interactional strategies improves the quality of peer interaction and leads to a shift from non-collaborative to collaborative interaction when performing pair tasks. Analysis of the self-evaluation forms and interviews shows that participants in the strategy group benefited greatly from the strategy training and gained a heightened awareness of their interactional behaviors. Participants also reported improvements in their fluency, interaction skills, strategy use, and affective states such as motivation, confidence, and self-esteem.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Interactional Strategies, Patterns of interaction, Peer interaction, Collaborative interaction, Strategy training

Etkileşimsel Strateji Eğitiminin Akran İşbirliği ve Etkileşim Kalıplarına Etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışma, etkileşim stratejisi eğitiminin akran etkileşimi sırasında ikili etkileşim kalıpları üzerindeki etkisini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmaya 18-22 yaş arası 28 lisans öğrencisi katılmıştır. Katılımcılar etkileşimsel strateji eğitimi alan deney grubu ve deney grubu ile aynı konuşma aktivitelerini yapan ancak strateji eğitimi almayan kontrol grubu olmak üzere iki gruptan oluşmuştur. Çalışmada, ön test, son test ve geciktirilmiş son test, öz değerlendirme formları ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yoluyla nicel ve nitel verileri toplayan karma yöntemli bir araştırma tasarımı kullanmıştır. Etkileşim kalıplarını ve ikili gruplar tarafından kullanılan etkileşim stratejilerini belirlemek için ön, son ve geciktirilmiş konuşma aktivitelerinin transkriptleri analiz edildi. İkili etkileşimin analizi, etkileşim stratejileri eğitiminin akran etkileşiminin kalitesini iyileştirdiğini ve ikili aktivitelerde işbirlikçi olmayan etkileşimden, işbirlikçi etkileşime geçişi kolaylaştırdığını ortaya koymaktadır. Öz-değerlendirme formlarının ve görüşmelerin analizi, strateji grubundaki katılımcıların strateji eğitiminden büyük ölçüde yararlandığını ve etkileşimsel iletişim konusunda artan bir farkındalık kazandığını göstermektedir. Katılımcılar ayrıca akıcılıklarında, etkileşim becerilerinde, strateji kullanımlarında ve motivasyon, güven ve benlik saygısı gibi duygusal durumlarında da iyileşmeler bildirmektedirler.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Etkileşim Stratejileri, Etkileşim Modelleri, Akran etkileşimi, İşbirlikçi etkileşim, Strateji eğitimi

Kaynakça

• Bejarano, Y., Levine, T., Olshtain, E., & Steiner, J. (1997). The skilled use of interaction strategies: Creating a framework for improved small-group interaction in the language classroom. System, 25(2), 203-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(97)00009-2
• Benson, S., Fischer, D., Geluso, J., & Von Joo, L. (2013). Effects of communication strategy training on EFL students’ performance in small-group discussions. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 245-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(97)00009-2/10.14746/ssllt.2013.3.2.5
• Chen, W. (2018). Patterns of pair interaction in communicative tasks: The transition process and effect on L2 teaching and learning. ELT Journal, 72(4), 425-434. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy015
• Choi, H., & Iwashita, N. (2016) Interactional behaviours of low-proficiency learners in small group work. In M. Sato, & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda, (pp.113-134). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.05cho
• Cicek, V., & Tok, H. (2014). Effective use of lesson plans to enhance education in US and Turkish kindergarten thru 12th grade public school system: A comparative study. International Journal of Teaching and Education, 2(2), 10-20.
• Coşkun, A. (2016). Benefits of out-of-class speaking activities for EFL students. Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim Dergisi, 5(3), 1448-1464.
• Creswell, J. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
• Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 9-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90013-x
• Dao, P. (2020). Effect of interaction strategy instruction on learner engagement in peer interaction. System, 91, 102244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102244
• Dao, P., & McDonough, K. (2018). Effect of proficiency on Vietnamese EFL learners’ engagement in peer interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 88, 60-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.01.008
• Ellis, R. and Barkhuizen, G. P. (2005). Analyzing accuracy, complexity, and fluency. In R. Ellis & G. P. Barkhuizen (Eds.), Analysing learner language, (pp. 139-164): Oxford: University Press Oxford.
• Fang, W.-C., Cassim, F. A. K., Hsu, C.-N., & Chen, N.-S. (2018). Effects of reciprocal peer feedback on EFL learners’ communication strategy use and oral communication performance. Smart Learning Environments, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-018-0061-2
• Fernández Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative dialogue in learner-learner and learner-native speaker interaction. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 229-256. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams002
• Fernandez Dobao, A. (2014). Vocabulary learning in collaborative tasks: A comparison of pair and small group work. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 497-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813519730
• Fernández Dobao, A. (2016). Peer interaction and learning: A focus on the silent learner. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 33–61). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.02fer
• Friginal, E., Lee, J. J., Polat, B., & Roberson, A. (2017). Corpora of spoken academic discourse and learner talk: A survey. In E. Friginal, J. J. Lee, B. Polat, & A. Roberson (Eds.), Exploring spoken English learner language using corpora (pp. 35-63). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59900-7_2
• Fujii, A., Ziegler, N., & Mackey, A. (2016). Peer interaction and metacognitive instruction in the EFL classroom. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 63-89). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.03fuj
• Galaczi, E. D. (2008). Peer-peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the First Certificate in English examination. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(2), 89-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300801934702
• García Mayo, M. P., & Azkarai, A. (2016). Does task modality impact on language-related episodes? In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 63-90). Amsterdam Netherlands: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.10gar
• García Mayo, M. P., & Pica, T. (2000). L2 learner interaction in a foreign language setting: Are learning needs addressed? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 35-58. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2000.38.1.35
• Gass, S.M., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4), 575-611. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00318.x
• Howard, J., & Major, J. (2004). Guidelines for designing effective English language teaching materials. The TESOLANZ Journal, 12(10), 50-58.
• Kim, Y. & McDonough, K. (2011). Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities. Language Teaching Research, 15(2),183-199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810388711
• Klippel, F., (1984). Keep talking: Communicative fluency activities for language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge university press.
• Lam, W., & Wong, J. 2000. The effects of strategy training on developing discussion skills in an ESL classroom. ELT Journal, 54(3), 245-255. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.3.245
• Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language teaching, 51(3), 285-329. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000125
• Long, M. H. (1995). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic Press.
• Long, M. H & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207-228. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586827
• Naughton, D. (2006). Cooperative strategy training and oral interaction: enhancing small group communication in the language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 169-184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00391.x
• Nakatani, Y. (2005). The effects of awareness‐raising training on oral communication strategy use. The Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 76-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2005.00266.x
• Philp, J., & Tognini, R. (2009). Language acquisition in foreign language contexts and the differential benefits of interaction. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 245-266. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2009.011
• Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language Learners’ Interaction: How Does It Address the Input, Output, and Feedback Needs of L2 Learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 59–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587607
• Rabab’ah, G. (2016). The effect of communication strategy training on the development of EFL learners’ strategic competence and oral communicative ability. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45(3), 625-651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-015-9365-3
• Richards, K. (2003) Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230505056
• Rubin, J., Chamot, A. U., Harris, V., and Anderson, N. J. (2007). Intervening in the use of strategies. In Cohen and Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: 30 years of research and practice (pp. 141-160). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611-633. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12035.x
• Sato, M. (2017). Interaction mindsets, interactional behaviors, and L2 development: An affective‐social‐cognitive model. Language Learning, 67(2), 249-283. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12214
• Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2016). Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 1-30). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.01int
• Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of interlocutor vs. feedback types. In Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 123–142). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(4), 591–626. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000356
• Sato, M., & Viveros, P. (2016). Interaction or collaboration? The proficiency effect on group work in the foreign language classroom. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 91-112). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45.04sat
• Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179
• Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 31– 48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812457530
• Suryati, N. (2015). Classroom interaction strategies employed by English teachers at lower secondary schools. Teflin Journal, 26(2), 247-264. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v26i2/247-264
• Tan, L., Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2010). Pair interactions and mode of communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 27.1-27.24. https://doi.org/10.2104/aral1027
• Toth, P. D. (2008). Teacher- and learner-led discourse in task-based grammar instruction: Providing procedural assistance for L2 morphosyntactic development. Language Learning, 58(2), 237-283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00441.x
• Tulung, G. (2008). Communicative task-generation oral discourse in a second language: A case study of peer interaction and non-native teacher talk in an EFL classroom (Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada). Retrieved from https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/29599
• Young, R. (2008). Language and advanced resource book. London: Routledge.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812457530
• Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity, and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104670
• Xu, J. F., & Kou, J. N. (2011). Small-group interaction strategy training in college English classrooms. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 43, 84-95.
• Zheng, C. (2012). Understanding the learning process of peer feedback activity: An ethnographic study of exploratory practice. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 109-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811426248