- Email: [email protected]
Disagreement in peer interaction: Its effect on learner task performance
Journal Pre-proof Disagreement in peer interaction: its effect on learner task performance
Chen Wenxue PII:
S0346-251X(19)30237-4
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102179
Reference:
SYS 102179
To appear in:
System
Received Date:
10 March 2019
Accepted Date:
17 November 2019
Please cite this article as: Chen Wenxue, Disagreement in peer interaction: its effect on learner task performance, System (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102179
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier.
Journal Pre-proof
Title: Disagreement in peer interaction: its effect on learner task performance Author name: CHEN Wenxue Affiliation: Southeast University Phone number: (+86)17761744923 Contact details: School of Foreign Languages, Building 2, Sipailou Campus, Southeast University Nanjing, Jiangsu Province China 210096 Funding: This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China; Title of the Project: Assessment of EFL learners’ ability for collaboration [grant number: 17CYY021].
Journal Pre-proof
Disagreement in peer interaction: its effect on learner task performance Abstract Research on peer interaction has shown that learners working collaboratively in communicative tasks promotes problem-solving and knowledge-building. However, attention has mainly been directed to language-related problem-solving during peer interaction. Little is known about how learners deal with problems other than linguistic issues in their dialogue. The present study examined disagreement in peer communication and its effect on learners’ task performance. It compared the peer interaction of learners carrying out two collaborative writing tasks, focusing on their resolution of disagreements and the co-constructed texts. The findings indicated that a collaborative pattern of peer dialogue that encouraged deliberation after disagreement was more likely to result in successful resolution and more precise co-constructed texts. However, interlocutors employing a non-collaborative pattern of interaction failed to fully engage with each other’s contributions, so discussions were short and the reconstructed texts tended to be inaccurate. Disagreement itself can prolong peer interaction due to learners’ evaluations, reasoning, and explanations, affording more opportunities for practice in the target language and improving their comprehension.
Key words: collaborative dialogue, disagreement, patterns of interaction, collaborative writing
1 Introduction Over the past two decades, peer interaction in communicative tasks has been a major interest in SLA research. Learners are able to improve their language use by interacting communicatively and purposefully while engaged in collaborative tasks. Researchers who espouse the Vygotskian paradigm 1
Journal Pre-proof argue that language learning occurs in peer interaction through the interlocutors’ joint efforts on problem-solving and knowledge-building. This process is often referred to as collaborative dialogue (Lantolf, 2000; Swain, 2000). This line of research tends to focus on the nature of collaboration (Storch, 2001), pair dynamics (Storch, 2002; Tan et al., 2010; Watanabe & Swain, 2007), learners’ collective problem-solving behaviour (Dobao, 2012; Swain & Lapkin, 1998), and the grammatical accuracy of work produced by students individually and in dyads (Storch, 1999, 2007; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009). The majority of these studies tend to assess learners’ success in collaborative dialogue by the quantity and quality of their language-related discussions (i.e., their language-related episodes) during peer interaction (e.g., Dobao, 2012; Tan et al., 2010; Watanabe & Swain, 2007). It is believed that the type of discussion whereby learners work together to solve linguistic problems is an indicator of their engagement with task completion (Swain & Lapkin, 1998) and depicts L2 learning in progress (Gass & Mackey, 2007).
Nevertheless, according to Vygotsky (1981), the kind of problem-solving that enables the developmental shift from other-regulation to self-regulation is not limited to solving linguistic problems. In fact, in a communicative task whose primary focus is meaning, its problem-solving aspect is far beyond linguistic items; a large proportion is related to the topic and content. It is uncertain how learners deal with this type of problem in collaborative dialogue and whether it helps their learning. This exploratory and descriptive study seeks to address this gap by examining how learners employed their L2 as a tool to help resolve disagreements during peer interaction, and how far this influenced learners’ task performance.
2
Journal Pre-proof 2 Literature Review 2.1 Sociocultural theory and collaborative dialogue Sociocultural theory claims that social interaction and mental development are mutually dependent and mediated. According to Vygotsky (1981), development occurs in the shift from dialogically inter-individual interaction to monologically intra-human mental processing. Development, in Vygotsky’s view, is the process of transforming physical and symbolic tools into psychological tools through which individuals obtain intentional control over their cognitive functioning and, accordingly, their relationship to the social world (Kozulin, Gindis, Ageev, & Miller, 2003).
In the L2 context, sociocultural researchers view L2 learning as the enhancement of ‘one’s repertoire of fragments and patterns that enables participation in a wider array of communicative activities’ (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p.17). This suggests that language development occurs when an individual enlarges and gains control over his/her linguistic resources for communication and increases the ability to utilise those resources for self-regulation (Gánem-Gutiérrez, 2013). Learners’ problem-solving behaviour in dialogue is critical for this development because it encourages individuals to invent new tools and practices or modify existing ones (e.g., experience and skills) to find solutions. If learners do not face and deal with problems, the developmental shift from interpsychological to intrapsychological functioning cannot occur (Wells, 1999).
The importance of problem-solving in SLA is especially highlighted by Swain (2000), who argues that the process of learners’ solution of complex cognitive problems is part of the L2 learning process. During the process, learners can create meaning for themselves and hence shape their linguistic knowledge and experience (Swain & Watanabe, 2013). Swain defines this process as languaging. A major form of languaging is collaborative dialogue, which creates opportunities for interlocutors to 3
Journal Pre-proof refine their knowledge or achieve a new or more complete understanding of a phenomenon. In collaborative dialogue, learners can use L2 as a cognitive tool to mediate their thinking, and the output can be questioned, added to, or discredited.
Focusing on problem-solving in collaborative dialogue, Swain and her colleagues have shown how peer interaction allows L2 learners to seek and offer assistance with language-related problems (e.g., Swain & Lapkin, 2002; Watanabe & Swain, 2007; Brooks & Swain, 2009). These studies analysed language-related episodes to examine the construction of collaborative dialogue. A language-related episode (LRE) is ‘any part of a dialogue where language learners talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or correct themselves or others’ (Swain & Lapkin, 1998, p.326). LREs are crucial for language learning to occur because they foster the switch from using language as a tool to language use itself as the target to be learned. LREs are a useful unit for understanding the process and product of L2 learning and have been widely used to illustrate learners’ mutual engagement in form-focused collaborative dialogue (e.g., Lapkin et al., 2002; Leeser, 2004; Watanabe and Swain, 2007).
In spite of their significant contribution to language learning, LREs are not always productive within learner dialogues. Researchers have found that if tasks have no written requirement, LREs are less likely to develop and learners simply make choices (Adams & Ross-Feldman, 2008; Niu, 2009). Thus LREs, even if there are a great many of them, fail to initiate negotiations about form and meaning. Even in collaborative writing tasks, LREs cluster around the writing up rather than the speaking phase of the task (Storch, 2013). These findings suggest that language-related discussions do not always take place within collaborative dialogues—and even if they do, they may not be enough to represent a collaborative dialogue, or illustrate the process of learners’ problem-solving and knowledge-building. 4
Journal Pre-proof Thus, this study, by looking at a specific type of problem—disagreement—in peer interaction, attempts to add more knowledge to the current understanding of collaborative dialogue, which should not be restricted to LREs.
2.2 Patterns of interaction Although collaborative dialogue is claimed to facilitate L2 learning, putting learners together does not guarantee that a collaborative dialogue will take place. Storch (2001, 2002, 2013) found that the degree of collaboration and the quantity and quality of LREs in collaborative dialogue depend on the patterns of interaction speakers employ. Patterns of interaction refers to the social roles negotiated by the interlocutors through their communication. Storch identified distinct interactional patterns based on the level of equality and mutuality between learners. In dyadic interactions, equality refers to the degree of power they each have to control the task progress, and mutuality refers to how far they engage with each other’s utterances. Equality and mutuality tend to be high in a collaborative pattern of interaction when both interlocutors work together throughout the task completion process. However, in non-collaborative patterns (dominant/dominant and dominant/passive), the two participants fail to engage with each other’s contributions.
Researchers interested in the variables that affect language learning claim that patterns of interaction have a stronger effect on the generation of LREs and opportunities for learning than interlocutor proficiency (Dobao, 2012; Watanabe & Swain, 2007). Similarly, interactional patterns are more able to determine the number of LREs produced than task type (Aldosari, 2008). Studies taking this line seem to uniformly suggest that collaborative patterns of interaction have a positive effect on the quantity and quality of LREs (e.g., Aldosari, 2008; Storch 2001; Tan et al., 2010). However, it is not known whether patterns of interaction influence other problem-solving behaviors in addition to the form-focused one. 5
Journal Pre-proof Answering this question could also help us understand the nature of collaborative dialogue better.
2.3 Disagreement in peer interaction In the general education field, researchers tend to regard disagreements as nuisances or obstacles to communication and overlook them, seeing achieving agreement as the main or only point of the dialogue (Matusov, 1996). This concept was quickly challenged when subsequent researchers discovered the dynamics of dialogic conflict and disagreement. Conflict and disagreement within collaborative learning are considered to be productive because they postpone consensus and encourage the search for further information (Burnett, 1993; Chinn & Clark, 2013). When speakers try to take different positions, they tend to make claims and give reasons and evidence to support them and resolve the disagreement. In defending their own position, students may need to provide much more detailed explanations than if they had not encountered a disagreement. Thus, they develop a deeper understanding of the relevant points once the disagreement has been expanded and explained (Baker, 2002; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Schwartz, 1995). Similarly, their ability to evaluate arguments can also be enhanced when listening to or anticipating their partner’s counterarguments (Dong et al., 2008). Overall, these studies suggest that disagreement in peer interaction can elicit more elaborate learner talk which fosters a more complete understanding of the content and a more precise articulation of the issues concerned.
While there is a proliferation of studies into disagreement in general educational research, SLA researchers seem to be less interested in this phenomenon. Tocalli-Beller (2003) reflected on her experience as an L2 learner in a collaboratively structured graduate course and tried to find out whether conflicting perspectives and disagreement can enhance learning. By analysing group interaction data, she concluded that disagreement prompts group members to verbalise their thoughts, sometimes 6
Journal Pre-proof repeatedly. This repetition then allowed her to tailor her language use appropriately—for instance, her choice of words. Although the course was not designed to facilitate language learning, Tocalli-Beller found herself improving in both her content and linguistic knowledge through collaboratively resolving conflicts in group work. Lee (2011) looked into L2 learners’ decision-making behaviour in a collaborative writing task. She noticed that better decisions tended to happen if learners did not simply agree with each other. In other words, disagreement can lead to lengthy discussions which give learners opportunities to develop their argumentation skills and allow them to scrutinise their knowledge about writing skills.
Although these findings seem to correspond to the results from the general education field, neither Tocalli-Beller nor Lee offer any direct evidence to explain how the collaborative resolution of disagreement contributes to learning the target language. Also, the results are far from generalizable since Tocalli-Beller focused only on the collaborative group she participated in and Lee’s participants were just two groups of three learners.
3 Research Questions To sum up, SLA research has evidenced the great impact of collaborative dialogue on language learning. However, this volume of research relates to learners’ linguistic problem-solving performance, and therefore it does not tell the full story of collaborative dialogue. To address this issue and add more knowledge to our understanding of disagreement in peer interaction, the current study explored how learners resolve disagreements in collaborative dialogue and its effect on their task performance. Two research questions were formulated:
1. What is the effect of patterns of interaction on learners’ disagreement resolution in collaborative dialogue? 7
Journal Pre-proof 2. What is the effect of disagreement on learners’ task performance?
4 Method This study was built upon a larger project which looked at the transition of patterns of interaction across tasks. The project involved 32 EFL participants in 16 dyads working on three collaborative writing tasks. Most of the learners in the project adjusted their relationships through their repetition of the same type of task: most dyads transferred from a non-collaborative to a collaborative relationship; some remained collaborative across all the tasks; but none started with a collaborative pattern and became non-collaborative over the research period. (Delete this sentence to avoid confusion?) The results generally suggest that learners are able to adjust their relationship to take on a more collaborative role, given sufficient opportunities for practice. In the present study, in order to identify the effect of different patterns of interaction on learners’ problem-solving, we only investigated the performance of the 8 dyads who were non-collaborative in the first task but became collaborative in task 3. This allowed the present study to track and compare learners’ problem-solving behavior over time within the same dyad, without variables such as differences due to individual personalities, which would have interfered with the data had comparison been made across all the dyads. In addition, the peer interaction data from task 2 was not used in this paper because only 4 of the 8 dyads became collaborative in task 2, and hence this data had only limited value for this investigation.
4.1 Participants The research data was collected from 16 Chinese tertiary level students. They were randomly paired up to complete a type of collaborative writing task outside their class time. Four of the 8 dyads comprised two males, two consisted of 2 females, and the remaining 2 each had a male and a female participant. They had not met each other before the study, and all reported that they were unfamiliar with the task
8
Journal Pre-proof type. Based upon their performance in the National College Entrance Examination and the university placement test, they were graded as high intermediate English learners (equivalent to Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) B2). The participants had been learning English from 8 years to 12 years, 9.6 years being the average.
4.2 Material and procedure The dictogloss task was employed to elicit peer interaction data. In the dictogloss, a pair of students recreates a text they have heard by taking notes and pooling their knowledge to compose a piece of writing that is close to the original. The dictogloss passages (see Appendix A) are targeted at intermediate to advanced language learners. The texts were run through the Web VocabProfile (Cobb, 2002) and the results suggested that the two texts were of comparable level: the type-token ratios of the two texts were 0.59 and 0.64. In general, the type-token ratios measure the lexical richness of written texts or speech. The range falls between 0 and 1. The results here indicated a moderate level of lexical variation in the two dictogloss texts, which seemed to be appropriate for these upper intermediate learners.
The dictogloss was carried out every other week by the students over a period of 5 weeks, making a total of three tasks. This research only considered the first and last dictogloss task. In order to familiarise the participants with the task type and task procedure, a video of proficient learners completing a model dictogloss task was shown to them. The peer interactions were audio recorded and later transcribed.
4.3 Data coding and analysis The audio-recordings were transcribed by the researcher; the conventions for the transcription are listed in Appendix B. The transcripts were first analysed to identify the patterns of interaction the students 9
Journal Pre-proof established in their dialogues, followed by a close investigation into the episodes where learners encountered disagreement. Finally, the co-constructed texts were qualitatively analysed to look for evidence of the effect of learners’ problem-solving on their written performance.
4.3.1 Patterns of interaction The peer communication data was analysed for patterns of interaction based on Storch’s (2001, p. 279) ‘patterns of dyadic interaction and associated traits’. In general, a collaborative pattern of interaction differs from a non-collaborative one by the level of learners’ engagement with each other’s production.
More specifically, collaborative interactions are characterised by speakers’:
contributing equal amounts of information;
negotiating decisions;
helping each other;
making frequent requests, questions, explanations, and other-repetitions.
However, non-collaborative patterns were identified when the following features occurred:
individual decision-making without any discussion with partners;
rare and only unidirectional peer assistance;
self-directed requests and self-directed questions;
a lack of appropriate responses to queries.
In the analysis, all the traits described above were coded and counted. For example, a high frequency of traits such as negotiated decision-making and peer assistance suggested a high level of collaboration. By contrast, a high number of features such as self-directed requests and self-directed questions suggested a lack of collaboration between the interlocutors. The peer interaction data was then
10
Journal Pre-proof categorised as either collaborative or non-collaborative based on the statistics for these traits.
4.3.2 Disagreement episodes The transcriptions were analysed to identify instances of disagreement and to classify how or if the learners resolved disagreements. A disagreement episode is a segment of interaction when one participant pointed out a view in conflict with that of his/her partner or directly rejected his/her partner’s ideas, usually with negative feedback introduced by ‘but I think’, ‘no’, ‘that’s wrong’, or an equivalent (see Lee, 2011 for similar codes). Figure 1 summarises the different categories of disagreement episodes classified. The disagreement episodes were further categorised as form-based or content-based. A form-based disagreement episode is similar to an LRE in which learners disagree with each other about language use, while the content-based disagreement is initiated by learners’ conflicting views about the content of the dictogloss passage. Insert Figure 1 here
To understand how learners dealt with problems in collaborative dialogue, the disagreement episodes were also classified as either resolved or unresolved. The resolved disagreement was further categorised according to the effort the learners devoted to resolving it, i.e., elaborated vs. immediate agreement. Similarly, the unresolved disagreements were categorised as ignored or failed, depending on whether the learners had attempted to resolve a particular disagreement or not. An instance of failed disagreement is one which was noticed by the speakers but they were not able to successfully resolve it.
4.3.3 The co-constructed texts To address the second research question concerning the effect of problem-solving on learners’ task performance, not only was how they resolved disagreement examined, but also their co-constructed 11
Journal Pre-proof texts. The texts were qualitatively analysed for any information relevant to the disagreement learners talked about in their interaction. Figure 2 presents how the written texts were categorised. Insert Figure 2 here Instances of disagreement discussion reflected in the written text were identified and labelled disagreement reflected in text. Instances where no such reflection was evident were labelled disagreement absent in text. The disagreements reflected in the texts were further categorised into corresponding to the original passage and deviating from the original passage. Corresponding to the original passage indicated a successfully resolved disagreement that made the reconstructed text close in meaning/form to the original dictogloss passage, while deviating from the original passage meant a failure to reproduce part of the dictogloss passage. The absence of disagreement in the texts was also explored and further divided into affecting task completion and not affecting task completion. When the learners were not able to resolve the disagreement, they sometimes fabricated information or left blanks in the constructed text, which consequently affected the degree of task completion. Table 1 summarises the classifications of the written texts with examples taken from the peer interaction data. In the table, quotes from students’ writing are indicated by bold italics in single quotes, compared to the original text highlighted in bold and italics without quotation marks. Insert Table 1 here The inter-rater reliability for all forms of analysis was checked through a random sample of four dyads’ interactions and their written texts. Reliability scores were the percentage of agreements between the two raters. The inter-rater agreement between two PhD candidates in Applied Linguistics for patterns of interaction, disagreement episodes and the co-constructed texts was 94%, 90% and 93% respectively. The discrepancies were solved through a follow-up discussion. Amendments to the analysis of the 12
Journal Pre-proof other four dyads were made after the discussion.
5 Results and Discussion 5.1 Disagreement in collaborative dialogue A total of 92 disagreement episodes were identified from 16 dialogues, indicating that each dyad encountered about 6 instances of disagreement on average in a task. Of these, 72% were content-based (66 episodes), suggesting a high frequency of non-linguistic problem-solving in the collaborative tasks. This supports the argument made earlier that problem-solving in collaborative dialogue is a more complicated process than LREs. Table 2 displays the number and percentage of disagreement episodes when learners formed distinct patterns of interaction. Insert Table 2 here Table 2 shows that the number of disagreement episodes tended to decrease when learners transferred from a non-collaborative relationship to a collaborative pattern of interaction. More importantly, it suggests that these speakers were more successful in settling disagreements when collaboratively orientated. Specifically, when learners were not collaborative in their dialogue, nearly half of their disagreements (42%) were unresolved. When the participants became collaborative in task 3, their chance of success in resolving disagreements through extended negotiation almost doubled (38% vs. 67%). These findings resonate with previous studies into patterns of interaction and LREs, indicating a better problem-solving performance in the collaborative dyads than in the non-collaborative pairs (e.g., Aldosari, 2008; Dobao, 2012; Storch, 2001; Watanbe & Swain, 2007). From a sociocultural perspective, collaborative pairs are more likely to resolve disagreements because the high mutuality between the interlocutors enables them to engage in each other’s contributions to work jointly to reach consensus.
13
Journal Pre-proof Another clear contrast in Table 2 is the number of ignored disagreement episodes elicited by different patterns of interaction (12 vs. 2). When mutuality is high, learners are attentive listeners as well as supportive speakers. They listen carefully to each other’s ideas to collaboratively address their differences. Disagreement, in this case, can be resolved, or at least paid attention to. The importance of interactive listening and peer support has already been discussed by researchers into paired speaking tests (e.g., Ducasse and Brown, 2009; Galaczi, 2014). They regard the role of the listener as equally important to that of the speaker in peer interaction, because active listening and initiating peer support are important components of interactional competence. Candidates who listened to their partner and offered supportive feedback tended to achieve better results than those who failed to do this. In non-collaborative pairs where mutual engagement is low, learners are more concerned with their own ideas and tend to disregard their partner’s contributions. The following excerpts illustrate how collaboration enabled the dyad to solve problems which they had not been able to solve when they were in a non-collaborative relationship. Excerpt 1 (Dictogloss 1, non-collaborative pattern) 1
Hu: shy enough, the polar bear went way.
2
Wei: shy? S-H-Y? I don’t think so… shy? ridiculous. The polar bear went away.
3
Hu: but I heard something like ‘shy’. You know… um… the bear saw their head… so…
4
Wei: the polar bear went way… um… I think that’s the end of the story.
5
Hu: have you… have you not heard ‘shy’… and something… something before =
6
Wei: it’s not important, skip, skip. In this excerpt, Hu tries to complete the last sentence of the story by initiating the phrase shy enough (sure enough in the dictogloss passage), which is immediately disagreed with and challenged by his partner, Wei. However, Wei makes no attempt to offer any explanation and is eager to switch their focus onto what he is concerned with (lines 2 and 4). Consequently, in spite of Hu’s repeated 14
Journal Pre-proof invitations to discuss (lines 3 and 5), this disagreement is left unsolved by Wei’s suggestion to skip it (line 6). This type of disagreement can be detrimental for positive peer interaction. Baker (2002) called it ‘confrontation’, when learners reject each other’s ideas without explaining why and do not suggest an alternative. If learners do not face and deal with their disagreements, they can become frustrated and demotivated about continuing to participate in dialogues (Lee, 2011; Tocalli-Beller, 2003). Consequently, the developmental shift from other-regulation to self-regulation, according to sociocultural theory, cannot occur (Wells, 1999). Excerpt 2 (Dictogloss 3, collaborative pattern) 7
Hu: I think er … Chulin was walking over the … over the bridge and … wonding … his own business.
8
Wei: wonding? What’s meaning?
9
Hu: I don’t know. I heard it, or finding?
10
Wei: no, it’s meaningless. I don’t think either of them … is … is ok.
11
Hu: I don’t know, just something like finding or wonding.
12
Wei: but we don’t know the meaning, if … if we write down, the meaning … will be wrong.
13
Hu: okay … um … let’s just delete it, instead of making grammar … I mean meaning wrong, make the
14
meaning wrong.
15
Wei: I think it just means his is not doing his business.
16
Hu: doing his business? Business, shang ye? (repeating ‘business’ in their L1)
17
Wei: of course a bear cannot … not do any business. I mean … um … just doing nothing, nothing par-
18
particular, and … and that’s why … why he fall down, you know, careless.
19
Hu: okay, so Chulin was walking over the bridge, doing nothing particular.
20
Wei: um… [6] or wandering? Maybe you heard wandering?
21
Hu: wondering? Wondering?
22
Wei: no, wandering, w-a-n-d-e-r, you know? Walk … walk lazy ... lazily.
23
Hu: yeah, yeah. Maybe.
24
[8]
25
Wei: but wandering his own business is wrong, again … um … meaningless.
26
Hu: you’re right, and you see, this sentence, Chulin was walking over the bridge, wandering. Walking 15
Journal Pre-proof 27
and wondering, it, it … it sounds weird. Let’s just keep the first one.
28
Wei: doing nothing particular?
29
Hu: yes, I think it … meaningful … close to the meaning. Excerpt 2 contrasts with Excerpt 1 in that the two learners deal with disagreement in a distinctive manner. Similarly, in this excerpt Hu initiates another word he is uncertain about. This time, Wei is not eager to disagree with his partner but invites him to make further clarifications (line 2). Although he fails to offer any explanation for his disagreement and suggests ignoring this similar problem again (line 7), he no longer tries to switch their mutual attention. Instead, he follows Hu’s prompt and proposes two solutions (doing nothing particular/wandering). Despite the fact that neither solution is adequate (minding his own business in the dictogloss passage), the elaborated disagreement, with sufficient explanations, generates two consecutive LREs that are supportive of L2 learning (Swain & Lapkin, 1998). As for Hu, his uncertainty has been resolved through peer assistance. The discussion here may be more valuable for Wei, who has to stretch his linguistic resources to make sense of the ‘nonsense’ based on his understanding of the topic and the approximate sound of the word he has heard.
The results are generally consistent with those from education studies (e.g., Baker, 2002; Burnett, 1993) and the small amount of SLA research (Lee, 2011; Tocalli-Beller, 2003). They all suggest that disagreement allows learners to explore additional information using a variety of argumentation skills such as evaluation, reasoning and explanation, all of which lead to improvement in understanding the content of texts. In addition, the results uphold claims made about the importance of the relationship between disagreement and L2 learning opportunities by comparing learners’ resolution strategies under two sets of circumstances (collaborative vs. non-collaborative). While disagreement can stimulate LREs in collaborative pairs, it may cause confrontation and demotivate non-collaborative dyads. 16
Journal Pre-proof 5.2 Disagreement in co-constructed text The above section has partly answered the research question regarding the effect of disagreement on learner task performance, as it has shown that disagreement is able to encourage negotiation and peer assistance in oral performance. This section examines the jointly reconstructed texts for further evidence to answer the second research question. Insert Table 3 here
Table 3 shows the instances where learners incorporated their discussion of disagreement into their written production, and when they failed to do so. When learners were collaborative, their success in resolving disagreement could be transferred to their written performance. In other words, as long as the upshot of the disagreement discussions was reflected in the jointly-produced written text, the overwhelming majority corresponded to the original dictogloss passage (23 instances out of 25 instances). In comparison, when learners had non-collaborative interactions, about a quarter (26%) of the topics of disagreement suffered from distortions of the original story in the final written product. Another 25% of the disagreements, although not indicated in the texts, impacted on the quality of the co-constructed texts and thus the level of task completeness. The two excerpts below help explain how students dealt with their disagreement and jointly constructed their written texts within different role relationships. Excerpt 3 (Dictogloss 1, non-collaborative pattern) 30
Tu: the guide told … told her to … told her stick your head onto or out, I’m not sure.
31
Li: onto the wall of the tent.
32
Tu: stick your head onto the wall?
33
Li: yeah, I heard it.
34
Tu: um … but I think … um … you know, if you stick your head onto the wall, you’ll get hurt. How …
35
can you … can you= 17
Journal Pre-proof 36
Li: =but I’m sure … I heard it, trust me, just write it.
37
Tu: ok. Stick his … her head=
38
Li: =onto the wall of the tent. This disagreement episode is a content-based one. It differs from an LRE in that the participants here are not focusing on the form of the target language (i.e. wall), nor its meaning; rather, they are concerned with the validity of putting it in the sentence. Although Tu notices the inappropriateness of this and attempts to negotiate with her partner (lines 3 and 5–6), she finally concedes as a result of Li’s insistence in a firm and confident tone (lines 7–9). Previous researchers have argued that interlocutors are less likely to receive higher-level help and hence achieve better performance if consensus is reached without explanation (Baker, 2002; Lee, 2011; Tocalli-Beller, 2003). With little explanation in this excerpt, Tu and Li wrote down ‘the guide told her, ‘don’t worry, stick your head onto the wall of the tent, it will go away’, while in the dictogloss passage, the guide asked the photographer to stick her head out of the tent. In fact, a few sentences before this one ‘the wall of the tent’ is mentioned (i.e., I saw the shape of a young polar bear which was playing with my feet through the wall of the tent). The co-constructed sentence is therefore logically inappropriate and affects the dyad’s completion of the task, since they were asked to convey the original message as closely as possible.
The next example demonstrates how this dyad elaborated on the communication conflict and incorporated it into their writing in a collaborative relationship. Excerpt 4 (Dictogloss 3, collaborative pattern) 1
Li: I heard some … some word like news.
2
Tu: news? I don’t think so, I don’t have it, and news … not make sense in this story.
3
Li: really, I heard news, I’m sure.
4
Tu: you’re making this part more … more miserable.
5
Li: um …the authority reach and find Chulin … Chulin fast asleep. It’s late … (student murmuring) 18
Journal Pre-proof 6
Wai- wait, maybe news is here.
7
Tu: why? Where?
8
Li: the news report said the weather … the time is too late and nothing can be done, so they come, they
9
came the next morning.
10
Tu: um … let me see … news says it’s too late … are you sure? I don’t think I’ve heard that.
11
Li: I’m not sure, but news is somewhere … next to … near this part, definitely.
12
Tu: um … news … news … the authority reach and find … (student murmuring)
13
[8]
14
Li: ah, I understand. News reach the authority.
15
Tu: um? Repeat, repeat it, please.
16
Li: you see (pointing at his notes), news is here, before reach. So the authorities heard the news, and …
17
and … dao guo lai (student using L1, ‘the reverse order’ in English), the news reach the authority.
18
Tu: oh … ok. News reach the authority … news reach … reached the authori- authority … yes, yes,
19
and we just missed another word, scene. News that Chulin fall over the bridge reached the authority
20
and they came to the scene and found Chulin fast sleep on the bridge, the ledge, on the ledge, and it’s
21
getting late, nothing can be done to … to save Chulin, so ... so=
22
Li: so they come back the next morning.
23
Tu: yeah. They returned the next morning.
24
Li: Yes! I think this is the story.
25
Tu: I’m sorry … I can’t agree with you…
26
Li: why?
27
Tu: anymore! I can’t agree with you anymore!
28
(laugh) This excerpt is similar to Excerpt 3 in that they are both initiated by Li suggesting a word (wall in Excerpt 3 and news in Excerpt 4) which is then challenged by his partner. They differ from each other in the way disagreement is dealt with. In Excerpt 3, the disagreement is resolved as a result of Tu’s concession, while in Excerpt 4, a strong consensus is reached (as can been observed from the last few exciting turns by the interlocutors) after deliberate negotiation. During the negotiation, although Li is still convinced that news should be incorporated into the text (line 3), he no longer insists without 19
Journal Pre-proof explaining why, as he did in Excerpt 3. This time, he goes back to the passage and consults his notes for clues (lines 16–17). With Tu’s scaffolding, especially by providing another key word, scene (line 19), the disagreement is finally successfully resolved. The different approaches to problem-solving in Excerpts 3 and 4 also result in a different quality of reconstructed sentence. In their writing, Li and Tu put ‘the news that Chulin fell on the ledge reached the authorities’, which fulfils the task requirement (original sentence: News of Chulin reached the authorities).
The comparison between the above excerpts resonates with previous studies into disagreement (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Schwartz, 1995), suggesting that learners’ extended discussions over disagreement, compared to accepting counter-suggestions or disagreeing without explanations, create more opportunities for learning. Johnson and Johnson (1989, p. 57) even claim that ‘the amount of time spent on explaining correlates highly with the amount learned’. In the collaborative writing task, the length of discussion on disagreement affected the quantity and quality of the negotiation of meaning and the accuracy of the reconstructed texts. Elaborated discussions allowed the pairs sufficient opportunities to experiment with the target language and use it as a tool to find a better, more meaningful and logical solution which reflected the dictogloss story more closely. Disagreement with limited attention paid, irrespective of whether there was a successful resolution, was unable to stretch the learners’ linguistic resources and exploit the learning potential to produce more accurate written texts.
In essence, the difference in discussion length is the difference in the level of mutuality between learners. Since the crux of collaborative dialogue is when learners collaboratively engage with each other, the results of problem-solving and knowledge-building are dependent on the level of involvement. Their involvement means not only the learners’ joint efforts and commitment to task 20
Journal Pre-proof completion, but, more importantly, their engagement with each other’s contributions. Engagement allows learners to listen to, add to, and extend each other’s utterances, pooling their resources to find better solutions and achieve better task performance (Storch, 2001). If they have a high level of engagement, even silent participants can benefit from peer interaction by carefully listening to their partners (Dobao, 2016). Chen (2017) also emphasises the importance of mutuality and argues that mutuality is more influential than equality in setting up learning opportunities. Conversation with high mutuality is fertile ground for peer assistance and feedback, sharing the responsibility for task completion, modifying the target language, and trying out communication and negotiation strategies. A collaborative pattern of peer interaction, then, amplifies the effect of collaborative dialogue which guarantees more success in problem-solving and more opportunities for the co-construction of knowledge.
6 Conclusions The results of this study further extend the volume of research into collaborative dialogue by focusing on how learners resolve disagreements and their oral and written performance. These findings confirm that the importance of collaborative dialogue and patterns of interaction also holds true for resolving disagreement. Specifically, a collaborative pattern of peer dialogue stimulates deliberation over disagreement, which is more likely to result in successful resolution and more accurate co-constructed texts. However, interlocutors in non-collaborative dialogue lack engagement with one another, which leads to short discussions or even ignoring disagreement, and consequently to inaccurate text reconstruction.
As an exploratory and descriptive study, the present research has its shortcomings and more research on this topic is needed. For example, because of its use of a cross-task comparison design, the study 21
Journal Pre-proof fails to examine how collaborative and non-collaborative pairs deal with disagreement when doing the same task. Thus, whether the content of the task plays a role in learners’ problem-solving is unknown. In addition, the task type might also have an effect on the results. Since information in the dictogloss is generally shared between the participants, disagreement may be less frequent than in tasks that involve an information gap (e.g., a jigsaw task). Future research could look into these aspects and expand on the current study to fully depict the nature of collaborative dialogue in communicative tasks and the importance of disagreement.
22
Journal Pre-proof References Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form? In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela. (Eds.), The Oral-Literate Connection: Perspectives on L2 Speaking, Writing, and Other Media Interactions (pp. 243-266). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Aldosari, A. (2008). The influence of proficiency levels, task types, and social relationships on pair interactions: An EFL context. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Baker, M. (2002). Forms of cooperation in dyadic problem-solving. In P. Salembler & H. Benchkroud (Eds.), Cooperation and Complexity (pp. 1-38). Paris: Hermes. Brooks, L., & Swain, M. (2009). Languaging in collaborative writing: Creation of and response to expertise. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple Perspectives on Interaction (pp. 58-89). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Burnett, R. (1993). Conflict in collaborative decision-making. In C. Thralls & N. Bryler, (Eds.), The Social Perspective and Professional Communication: Diversity and Directions in Research (pp. 144-163). London: SAGE Publications. Chen, W. (2017). The effect of conversation engagement on L2 learning opportunities. ELT journal, 71(3), 329-340. Chinn, C. A., & Clark, D. B. (2013). Learning through collaborative argumentation. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. M. O’Donnell (Eds.), International Handbook of Collaborative Learning (pp. 314-332). New York: Taylor & Francis. Dobao, A. F. (2012). Collaborative dialogue in learner-learner and learner-native speaker interaction. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 229-256. Dobao, A. F. (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: John Benjamins. Dong, T., Anderson, R. C., Kim, I., & Li, Y. (2008). Collaborative reasoning in China and Korea. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 400-424. Ducasse, A. M., & Brown, A. (2009). Assessing paired orals: Raters’ orientation to interaction. Language Testing, 26(3), 423-443. Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A. (2013). Sociocultural Theory and second language development. In M. D. P. García Mayo, M. J. G. Mangado & M. M. Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 129-152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2007) Input, interaction and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (pp. 175-199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Galaczi, E. D. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests? Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 553-574. 23
Journal Pre-proof Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageev, V. S., & Miller, S. M. (2003). Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M., (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. Modern Language Journal, 86, 485-507. Lee, M. (2011). Decision making in a collaborative writing task. Proceedings of the 3rd CELC Symposium, National University of Singapore, 159-168. Leeser, M.J., 2004. Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55-81. Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 313-327. Matusov, E. (1996). Intersubjectivity without agreement. Mind, Culture, and Activity: An International Journal, 3(1), 25-45. Niu, R. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18(3-4), 384-402. Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 321-354. Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27, 363-374. Storch, N. (2001). An investigation into the nature of pair work in an ESL classroom and its effect on grammatical development. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158. Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 143-159. Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative Writing in L2 Classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-256). New York: Newbury House. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 97-114). 24
Journal Pre-proof Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320-337. 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., & Watanabe, Y. (2013). Language: Collaborative dialogue as a source of second language learning. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopaedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 3218-3225). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Tan, L. L., Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2010). Pair interactions and mode of communication: Comparing face-to-face and computer mediated communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 27.21-27.24. Tocalli-Beller, A. (2003). Cognitive conflict, disagreement and repetition in collaborative groups: Affective and social dimensions from an insider’s perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 143-71. Cobb,T. (2002). Web Vocabprofile [accessed March 2019 from http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/], an adaptation of Heatley, Nation & Coxhead's (2002) Range. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 144-188). Armonk, NY: ME-Sharpe. 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. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Socio-cultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466.
25
Journal Pre-proof Appendices Appendix A The dictogloss tasks Dictogloss task 1: The Inuit guide I was in the Arctic with an Inuit guide, a long way above the Arctic Circle, where I was taking photographs of seals underwater. After a few days the weather turned bad and we decided to spend the night on the ice. Early the next morning I was lying in the tent, just waking up, when I felt something moving against my feet. I looked to see what it was, and I saw the shape of a young polar bear which was playing with my feet through the wall of the tent. I kept as still as I could, and very quietly woke the guide and told him what was happening. He said, ‘Don’t worry, just stick your head out of the tent and it will go away.’ So I said. ‘Well, you stick your head out of the tent.’ And that’s exactly what he did – he stuck his head out of the tent, and sure enough the polar bear went away. (Taken from English Unlimited, 2011) Retrieved from https://www2.klett.de/sixcms/media.php/10/a08105-53990004_eu_dictogloss_eb.pdf Dictogloss task 3: The bear on the bridge One day, in the Sierra Nevada mountain range, California, Chulin was walking over a bridge, minding his own business. When a car passed, Chulin got scared and jumped over the side of the bridge. Somehow, he managed to catch a ledge and pull himself to safety. News of Chulin reached the authorities and when they arrived at the scene, they found him fast asleep on the ledge. It was getting late so they decided that nothing could be done that night. They returned the next morning with a net, which they positioned under the bridge. They shot Chulin with a tranquilizer dart and waited for him to fall asleep. They used a pole to push groggy Chulin off the ledge and into the net. Chulin was lowered to the ground and set free. ‘My wife is never going to believe this’, Chulin thought to himself as he went on his way. (Taken from Keddie, 2010) Retrieved from http://lessonstream.org/2011/01/10/the-blob-on-the-bridge/
26
Journal Pre-proof Appendix B Transcription symbols ()
Para- and extra-linguistic features, e.g. (laugh)
… (multiple periods)
Short pause, between 0.5 and 3 seconds
[5]
Longer pause; the number in square brackets indicates the length of the pause in seconds
=
The ‘equals’ sign indicates interruptions or contiguous utterances
Wor-
Only part of a word is pronounced; i.e., utterances are cut off or unfinished
27
Journal Pre-proof This work is an individual project, so it does not involve any co-author. Funding: This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China; Title of the Project: Assessment of EFL learners’ ability for collaboration [grant number: 17CYY021].
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 2 Categorization of co-constructed texts
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 1 Categorization of disagreement episodes
Table 1 coding of the data No.
Excerpt
Type of text
Type of disagreement
Corresponding to the original passage Chen: they shoot something to the bear. Gao: yeah, they shoot something.
Although the participants could not name ‘tranquilizer dart’ as
Chen: with a…
some type of sleeping drug in a needle to make him fall
a complete expression, they wrote ‘They shot Chulin with asleep’, which corresponds to the meaning in the original text
Gao: to make him…
- They shot Chulin with a tranquilizer dart and waited for him
Chen: down… drop. 1
Gao: no, no, I think not this case. You know… um… Chulin is very big, a big bear. They can’t carry him when he is… he is… um… conscious, so they make him asleep first and then… drop down. Chen: okay, okay. It’s like a type of drug, like sleeping pills. Gao: yeah, something like that.
Elaborated
Reflected
(content-based)
in text
Resolved
to fall asleep. This suggests they had understood the message of the text.
Deviating from the original passage Wang: the author let the guide stick his head out of the tent. He did so. 2
Immediate
Zhou: no, no, no. The author, she, herself… she
The disagreement is immediately resolved after its initiation,
agreement
stick his… her head out.
with
confession
of
his
uncertainty.
In
the
co-constructed text, the dyad put ‘I was asked to stick my
(content-based)
Wang: okay. I’m confused.
Wang’s
head out of the tent and I did so as required’. However, in the original passage, the first person narrator (the photographer)
Zhou: definitely.
did not stick her head out of the tent but the guide did. Affecting task completion
Li: I heard feet or something. Tong: no, it’s head.
The disagreement is left unresolved as Tong directs their attention to the construction of the last sentence. In the
Li: yes, but he also mentions feet. 3
Tong: it doesn’t matter, let’s focus on the main point. Li: but… Tong: and the last sentence… he sticks his head out of the tent and polar bear went away.
Ignored
Absent in
written output, they wrote ‘I was lying in the tent, just
(content-based)
text
waking up, finding the shape of a young polar bear outside
Unresolved
the tent’, which fails to explain the reason for the author noticing the polar bear (I was lying in the tent, just waking up, when I felt something moving against my feet in the original story).
Not affecting task completion
Sun: The guide said just stick his head out of the tent. He did as he told to stick his head out, then the polar bear went away.
Although Tian disagrees with Sun’s sentence and identifies the
Tian: I think this sentence is wrong, there are grammar mistake. He did as he told, did what? 4
This is a… this is a… Zhuang yu cong ju (learner using L1 for negotiation, ‘adverbial clause’ in English). Sun: um… [5] my grammar is poor. Tian: then just delete it. Sun: okay.
grammar problem, the dyad fail to reformulate the sentence Failed (form-based)
and want to give up. In the reconstructed text, they simply put ‘He did stick his head out and then the polar bear went away’. The failure to correct the grammatically problematic sentence does not affect the meaning they intended to deliver which is consistent with the message from the dictogloss story.
Journal Pre-proof Resolved Elaborated
Non-collaborative (Task 1) Collaborative (Task 3)
Unresolved
Immediate agreement
Ignored
Failed
Total
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
20 (38%)
11 (20%)
12 (23%)
10 (19%)
53
26 (67%)
6 (15%)
2 (5%)
5 (13%)
39
Table 2 Patterns of interaction and resolutions in disagreement
Journal Pre-proof Disagreement reflected in text Corresponding Deviating from to the original the original passage passage N (%) N (%)
Disagreement absent in text Affecting Not affecting task task completion completion N (%) N (%)
Total
Non-collaborative (Task 1)
18 (34%)
14 (26%)
13 (25%)
8 (15%)
53
Collaborative (Task 3)
23 (59%)
2 (5%)
3 (8%)
11 (28%)
39
Table 3 Disagreement in the co-constructed texts
Chen Wenxue PII:
S0346-251X(19)30237-4
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102179
Reference:
SYS 102179
To appear in:
System
Received Date:
10 March 2019
Accepted Date:
17 November 2019
Please cite this article as: Chen Wenxue, Disagreement in peer interaction: its effect on learner task performance, System (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102179
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier.
Journal Pre-proof
Title: Disagreement in peer interaction: its effect on learner task performance Author name: CHEN Wenxue Affiliation: Southeast University Phone number: (+86)17761744923 Contact details: School of Foreign Languages, Building 2, Sipailou Campus, Southeast University Nanjing, Jiangsu Province China 210096 Funding: This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China; Title of the Project: Assessment of EFL learners’ ability for collaboration [grant number: 17CYY021].
Journal Pre-proof
Disagreement in peer interaction: its effect on learner task performance Abstract Research on peer interaction has shown that learners working collaboratively in communicative tasks promotes problem-solving and knowledge-building. However, attention has mainly been directed to language-related problem-solving during peer interaction. Little is known about how learners deal with problems other than linguistic issues in their dialogue. The present study examined disagreement in peer communication and its effect on learners’ task performance. It compared the peer interaction of learners carrying out two collaborative writing tasks, focusing on their resolution of disagreements and the co-constructed texts. The findings indicated that a collaborative pattern of peer dialogue that encouraged deliberation after disagreement was more likely to result in successful resolution and more precise co-constructed texts. However, interlocutors employing a non-collaborative pattern of interaction failed to fully engage with each other’s contributions, so discussions were short and the reconstructed texts tended to be inaccurate. Disagreement itself can prolong peer interaction due to learners’ evaluations, reasoning, and explanations, affording more opportunities for practice in the target language and improving their comprehension.
Key words: collaborative dialogue, disagreement, patterns of interaction, collaborative writing
1 Introduction Over the past two decades, peer interaction in communicative tasks has been a major interest in SLA research. Learners are able to improve their language use by interacting communicatively and purposefully while engaged in collaborative tasks. Researchers who espouse the Vygotskian paradigm 1
Journal Pre-proof argue that language learning occurs in peer interaction through the interlocutors’ joint efforts on problem-solving and knowledge-building. This process is often referred to as collaborative dialogue (Lantolf, 2000; Swain, 2000). This line of research tends to focus on the nature of collaboration (Storch, 2001), pair dynamics (Storch, 2002; Tan et al., 2010; Watanabe & Swain, 2007), learners’ collective problem-solving behaviour (Dobao, 2012; Swain & Lapkin, 1998), and the grammatical accuracy of work produced by students individually and in dyads (Storch, 1999, 2007; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009). The majority of these studies tend to assess learners’ success in collaborative dialogue by the quantity and quality of their language-related discussions (i.e., their language-related episodes) during peer interaction (e.g., Dobao, 2012; Tan et al., 2010; Watanabe & Swain, 2007). It is believed that the type of discussion whereby learners work together to solve linguistic problems is an indicator of their engagement with task completion (Swain & Lapkin, 1998) and depicts L2 learning in progress (Gass & Mackey, 2007).
Nevertheless, according to Vygotsky (1981), the kind of problem-solving that enables the developmental shift from other-regulation to self-regulation is not limited to solving linguistic problems. In fact, in a communicative task whose primary focus is meaning, its problem-solving aspect is far beyond linguistic items; a large proportion is related to the topic and content. It is uncertain how learners deal with this type of problem in collaborative dialogue and whether it helps their learning. This exploratory and descriptive study seeks to address this gap by examining how learners employed their L2 as a tool to help resolve disagreements during peer interaction, and how far this influenced learners’ task performance.
2
Journal Pre-proof 2 Literature Review 2.1 Sociocultural theory and collaborative dialogue Sociocultural theory claims that social interaction and mental development are mutually dependent and mediated. According to Vygotsky (1981), development occurs in the shift from dialogically inter-individual interaction to monologically intra-human mental processing. Development, in Vygotsky’s view, is the process of transforming physical and symbolic tools into psychological tools through which individuals obtain intentional control over their cognitive functioning and, accordingly, their relationship to the social world (Kozulin, Gindis, Ageev, & Miller, 2003).
In the L2 context, sociocultural researchers view L2 learning as the enhancement of ‘one’s repertoire of fragments and patterns that enables participation in a wider array of communicative activities’ (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p.17). This suggests that language development occurs when an individual enlarges and gains control over his/her linguistic resources for communication and increases the ability to utilise those resources for self-regulation (Gánem-Gutiérrez, 2013). Learners’ problem-solving behaviour in dialogue is critical for this development because it encourages individuals to invent new tools and practices or modify existing ones (e.g., experience and skills) to find solutions. If learners do not face and deal with problems, the developmental shift from interpsychological to intrapsychological functioning cannot occur (Wells, 1999).
The importance of problem-solving in SLA is especially highlighted by Swain (2000), who argues that the process of learners’ solution of complex cognitive problems is part of the L2 learning process. During the process, learners can create meaning for themselves and hence shape their linguistic knowledge and experience (Swain & Watanabe, 2013). Swain defines this process as languaging. A major form of languaging is collaborative dialogue, which creates opportunities for interlocutors to 3
Journal Pre-proof refine their knowledge or achieve a new or more complete understanding of a phenomenon. In collaborative dialogue, learners can use L2 as a cognitive tool to mediate their thinking, and the output can be questioned, added to, or discredited.
Focusing on problem-solving in collaborative dialogue, Swain and her colleagues have shown how peer interaction allows L2 learners to seek and offer assistance with language-related problems (e.g., Swain & Lapkin, 2002; Watanabe & Swain, 2007; Brooks & Swain, 2009). These studies analysed language-related episodes to examine the construction of collaborative dialogue. A language-related episode (LRE) is ‘any part of a dialogue where language learners talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or correct themselves or others’ (Swain & Lapkin, 1998, p.326). LREs are crucial for language learning to occur because they foster the switch from using language as a tool to language use itself as the target to be learned. LREs are a useful unit for understanding the process and product of L2 learning and have been widely used to illustrate learners’ mutual engagement in form-focused collaborative dialogue (e.g., Lapkin et al., 2002; Leeser, 2004; Watanabe and Swain, 2007).
In spite of their significant contribution to language learning, LREs are not always productive within learner dialogues. Researchers have found that if tasks have no written requirement, LREs are less likely to develop and learners simply make choices (Adams & Ross-Feldman, 2008; Niu, 2009). Thus LREs, even if there are a great many of them, fail to initiate negotiations about form and meaning. Even in collaborative writing tasks, LREs cluster around the writing up rather than the speaking phase of the task (Storch, 2013). These findings suggest that language-related discussions do not always take place within collaborative dialogues—and even if they do, they may not be enough to represent a collaborative dialogue, or illustrate the process of learners’ problem-solving and knowledge-building. 4
Journal Pre-proof Thus, this study, by looking at a specific type of problem—disagreement—in peer interaction, attempts to add more knowledge to the current understanding of collaborative dialogue, which should not be restricted to LREs.
2.2 Patterns of interaction Although collaborative dialogue is claimed to facilitate L2 learning, putting learners together does not guarantee that a collaborative dialogue will take place. Storch (2001, 2002, 2013) found that the degree of collaboration and the quantity and quality of LREs in collaborative dialogue depend on the patterns of interaction speakers employ. Patterns of interaction refers to the social roles negotiated by the interlocutors through their communication. Storch identified distinct interactional patterns based on the level of equality and mutuality between learners. In dyadic interactions, equality refers to the degree of power they each have to control the task progress, and mutuality refers to how far they engage with each other’s utterances. Equality and mutuality tend to be high in a collaborative pattern of interaction when both interlocutors work together throughout the task completion process. However, in non-collaborative patterns (dominant/dominant and dominant/passive), the two participants fail to engage with each other’s contributions.
Researchers interested in the variables that affect language learning claim that patterns of interaction have a stronger effect on the generation of LREs and opportunities for learning than interlocutor proficiency (Dobao, 2012; Watanabe & Swain, 2007). Similarly, interactional patterns are more able to determine the number of LREs produced than task type (Aldosari, 2008). Studies taking this line seem to uniformly suggest that collaborative patterns of interaction have a positive effect on the quantity and quality of LREs (e.g., Aldosari, 2008; Storch 2001; Tan et al., 2010). However, it is not known whether patterns of interaction influence other problem-solving behaviors in addition to the form-focused one. 5
Journal Pre-proof Answering this question could also help us understand the nature of collaborative dialogue better.
2.3 Disagreement in peer interaction In the general education field, researchers tend to regard disagreements as nuisances or obstacles to communication and overlook them, seeing achieving agreement as the main or only point of the dialogue (Matusov, 1996). This concept was quickly challenged when subsequent researchers discovered the dynamics of dialogic conflict and disagreement. Conflict and disagreement within collaborative learning are considered to be productive because they postpone consensus and encourage the search for further information (Burnett, 1993; Chinn & Clark, 2013). When speakers try to take different positions, they tend to make claims and give reasons and evidence to support them and resolve the disagreement. In defending their own position, students may need to provide much more detailed explanations than if they had not encountered a disagreement. Thus, they develop a deeper understanding of the relevant points once the disagreement has been expanded and explained (Baker, 2002; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Schwartz, 1995). Similarly, their ability to evaluate arguments can also be enhanced when listening to or anticipating their partner’s counterarguments (Dong et al., 2008). Overall, these studies suggest that disagreement in peer interaction can elicit more elaborate learner talk which fosters a more complete understanding of the content and a more precise articulation of the issues concerned.
While there is a proliferation of studies into disagreement in general educational research, SLA researchers seem to be less interested in this phenomenon. Tocalli-Beller (2003) reflected on her experience as an L2 learner in a collaboratively structured graduate course and tried to find out whether conflicting perspectives and disagreement can enhance learning. By analysing group interaction data, she concluded that disagreement prompts group members to verbalise their thoughts, sometimes 6
Journal Pre-proof repeatedly. This repetition then allowed her to tailor her language use appropriately—for instance, her choice of words. Although the course was not designed to facilitate language learning, Tocalli-Beller found herself improving in both her content and linguistic knowledge through collaboratively resolving conflicts in group work. Lee (2011) looked into L2 learners’ decision-making behaviour in a collaborative writing task. She noticed that better decisions tended to happen if learners did not simply agree with each other. In other words, disagreement can lead to lengthy discussions which give learners opportunities to develop their argumentation skills and allow them to scrutinise their knowledge about writing skills.
Although these findings seem to correspond to the results from the general education field, neither Tocalli-Beller nor Lee offer any direct evidence to explain how the collaborative resolution of disagreement contributes to learning the target language. Also, the results are far from generalizable since Tocalli-Beller focused only on the collaborative group she participated in and Lee’s participants were just two groups of three learners.
3 Research Questions To sum up, SLA research has evidenced the great impact of collaborative dialogue on language learning. However, this volume of research relates to learners’ linguistic problem-solving performance, and therefore it does not tell the full story of collaborative dialogue. To address this issue and add more knowledge to our understanding of disagreement in peer interaction, the current study explored how learners resolve disagreements in collaborative dialogue and its effect on their task performance. Two research questions were formulated:
1. What is the effect of patterns of interaction on learners’ disagreement resolution in collaborative dialogue? 7
Journal Pre-proof 2. What is the effect of disagreement on learners’ task performance?
4 Method This study was built upon a larger project which looked at the transition of patterns of interaction across tasks. The project involved 32 EFL participants in 16 dyads working on three collaborative writing tasks. Most of the learners in the project adjusted their relationships through their repetition of the same type of task: most dyads transferred from a non-collaborative to a collaborative relationship; some remained collaborative across all the tasks; but none started with a collaborative pattern and became non-collaborative over the research period. (Delete this sentence to avoid confusion?) The results generally suggest that learners are able to adjust their relationship to take on a more collaborative role, given sufficient opportunities for practice. In the present study, in order to identify the effect of different patterns of interaction on learners’ problem-solving, we only investigated the performance of the 8 dyads who were non-collaborative in the first task but became collaborative in task 3. This allowed the present study to track and compare learners’ problem-solving behavior over time within the same dyad, without variables such as differences due to individual personalities, which would have interfered with the data had comparison been made across all the dyads. In addition, the peer interaction data from task 2 was not used in this paper because only 4 of the 8 dyads became collaborative in task 2, and hence this data had only limited value for this investigation.
4.1 Participants The research data was collected from 16 Chinese tertiary level students. They were randomly paired up to complete a type of collaborative writing task outside their class time. Four of the 8 dyads comprised two males, two consisted of 2 females, and the remaining 2 each had a male and a female participant. They had not met each other before the study, and all reported that they were unfamiliar with the task
8
Journal Pre-proof type. Based upon their performance in the National College Entrance Examination and the university placement test, they were graded as high intermediate English learners (equivalent to Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) B2). The participants had been learning English from 8 years to 12 years, 9.6 years being the average.
4.2 Material and procedure The dictogloss task was employed to elicit peer interaction data. In the dictogloss, a pair of students recreates a text they have heard by taking notes and pooling their knowledge to compose a piece of writing that is close to the original. The dictogloss passages (see Appendix A) are targeted at intermediate to advanced language learners. The texts were run through the Web VocabProfile (Cobb, 2002) and the results suggested that the two texts were of comparable level: the type-token ratios of the two texts were 0.59 and 0.64. In general, the type-token ratios measure the lexical richness of written texts or speech. The range falls between 0 and 1. The results here indicated a moderate level of lexical variation in the two dictogloss texts, which seemed to be appropriate for these upper intermediate learners.
The dictogloss was carried out every other week by the students over a period of 5 weeks, making a total of three tasks. This research only considered the first and last dictogloss task. In order to familiarise the participants with the task type and task procedure, a video of proficient learners completing a model dictogloss task was shown to them. The peer interactions were audio recorded and later transcribed.
4.3 Data coding and analysis The audio-recordings were transcribed by the researcher; the conventions for the transcription are listed in Appendix B. The transcripts were first analysed to identify the patterns of interaction the students 9
Journal Pre-proof established in their dialogues, followed by a close investigation into the episodes where learners encountered disagreement. Finally, the co-constructed texts were qualitatively analysed to look for evidence of the effect of learners’ problem-solving on their written performance.
4.3.1 Patterns of interaction The peer communication data was analysed for patterns of interaction based on Storch’s (2001, p. 279) ‘patterns of dyadic interaction and associated traits’. In general, a collaborative pattern of interaction differs from a non-collaborative one by the level of learners’ engagement with each other’s production.
More specifically, collaborative interactions are characterised by speakers’:
contributing equal amounts of information;
negotiating decisions;
helping each other;
making frequent requests, questions, explanations, and other-repetitions.
However, non-collaborative patterns were identified when the following features occurred:
individual decision-making without any discussion with partners;
rare and only unidirectional peer assistance;
self-directed requests and self-directed questions;
a lack of appropriate responses to queries.
In the analysis, all the traits described above were coded and counted. For example, a high frequency of traits such as negotiated decision-making and peer assistance suggested a high level of collaboration. By contrast, a high number of features such as self-directed requests and self-directed questions suggested a lack of collaboration between the interlocutors. The peer interaction data was then
10
Journal Pre-proof categorised as either collaborative or non-collaborative based on the statistics for these traits.
4.3.2 Disagreement episodes The transcriptions were analysed to identify instances of disagreement and to classify how or if the learners resolved disagreements. A disagreement episode is a segment of interaction when one participant pointed out a view in conflict with that of his/her partner or directly rejected his/her partner’s ideas, usually with negative feedback introduced by ‘but I think’, ‘no’, ‘that’s wrong’, or an equivalent (see Lee, 2011 for similar codes). Figure 1 summarises the different categories of disagreement episodes classified. The disagreement episodes were further categorised as form-based or content-based. A form-based disagreement episode is similar to an LRE in which learners disagree with each other about language use, while the content-based disagreement is initiated by learners’ conflicting views about the content of the dictogloss passage. Insert Figure 1 here
To understand how learners dealt with problems in collaborative dialogue, the disagreement episodes were also classified as either resolved or unresolved. The resolved disagreement was further categorised according to the effort the learners devoted to resolving it, i.e., elaborated vs. immediate agreement. Similarly, the unresolved disagreements were categorised as ignored or failed, depending on whether the learners had attempted to resolve a particular disagreement or not. An instance of failed disagreement is one which was noticed by the speakers but they were not able to successfully resolve it.
4.3.3 The co-constructed texts To address the second research question concerning the effect of problem-solving on learners’ task performance, not only was how they resolved disagreement examined, but also their co-constructed 11
Journal Pre-proof texts. The texts were qualitatively analysed for any information relevant to the disagreement learners talked about in their interaction. Figure 2 presents how the written texts were categorised. Insert Figure 2 here Instances of disagreement discussion reflected in the written text were identified and labelled disagreement reflected in text. Instances where no such reflection was evident were labelled disagreement absent in text. The disagreements reflected in the texts were further categorised into corresponding to the original passage and deviating from the original passage. Corresponding to the original passage indicated a successfully resolved disagreement that made the reconstructed text close in meaning/form to the original dictogloss passage, while deviating from the original passage meant a failure to reproduce part of the dictogloss passage. The absence of disagreement in the texts was also explored and further divided into affecting task completion and not affecting task completion. When the learners were not able to resolve the disagreement, they sometimes fabricated information or left blanks in the constructed text, which consequently affected the degree of task completion. Table 1 summarises the classifications of the written texts with examples taken from the peer interaction data. In the table, quotes from students’ writing are indicated by bold italics in single quotes, compared to the original text highlighted in bold and italics without quotation marks. Insert Table 1 here The inter-rater reliability for all forms of analysis was checked through a random sample of four dyads’ interactions and their written texts. Reliability scores were the percentage of agreements between the two raters. The inter-rater agreement between two PhD candidates in Applied Linguistics for patterns of interaction, disagreement episodes and the co-constructed texts was 94%, 90% and 93% respectively. The discrepancies were solved through a follow-up discussion. Amendments to the analysis of the 12
Journal Pre-proof other four dyads were made after the discussion.
5 Results and Discussion 5.1 Disagreement in collaborative dialogue A total of 92 disagreement episodes were identified from 16 dialogues, indicating that each dyad encountered about 6 instances of disagreement on average in a task. Of these, 72% were content-based (66 episodes), suggesting a high frequency of non-linguistic problem-solving in the collaborative tasks. This supports the argument made earlier that problem-solving in collaborative dialogue is a more complicated process than LREs. Table 2 displays the number and percentage of disagreement episodes when learners formed distinct patterns of interaction. Insert Table 2 here Table 2 shows that the number of disagreement episodes tended to decrease when learners transferred from a non-collaborative relationship to a collaborative pattern of interaction. More importantly, it suggests that these speakers were more successful in settling disagreements when collaboratively orientated. Specifically, when learners were not collaborative in their dialogue, nearly half of their disagreements (42%) were unresolved. When the participants became collaborative in task 3, their chance of success in resolving disagreements through extended negotiation almost doubled (38% vs. 67%). These findings resonate with previous studies into patterns of interaction and LREs, indicating a better problem-solving performance in the collaborative dyads than in the non-collaborative pairs (e.g., Aldosari, 2008; Dobao, 2012; Storch, 2001; Watanbe & Swain, 2007). From a sociocultural perspective, collaborative pairs are more likely to resolve disagreements because the high mutuality between the interlocutors enables them to engage in each other’s contributions to work jointly to reach consensus.
13
Journal Pre-proof Another clear contrast in Table 2 is the number of ignored disagreement episodes elicited by different patterns of interaction (12 vs. 2). When mutuality is high, learners are attentive listeners as well as supportive speakers. They listen carefully to each other’s ideas to collaboratively address their differences. Disagreement, in this case, can be resolved, or at least paid attention to. The importance of interactive listening and peer support has already been discussed by researchers into paired speaking tests (e.g., Ducasse and Brown, 2009; Galaczi, 2014). They regard the role of the listener as equally important to that of the speaker in peer interaction, because active listening and initiating peer support are important components of interactional competence. Candidates who listened to their partner and offered supportive feedback tended to achieve better results than those who failed to do this. In non-collaborative pairs where mutual engagement is low, learners are more concerned with their own ideas and tend to disregard their partner’s contributions. The following excerpts illustrate how collaboration enabled the dyad to solve problems which they had not been able to solve when they were in a non-collaborative relationship. Excerpt 1 (Dictogloss 1, non-collaborative pattern) 1
Hu: shy enough, the polar bear went way.
2
Wei: shy? S-H-Y? I don’t think so… shy? ridiculous. The polar bear went away.
3
Hu: but I heard something like ‘shy’. You know… um… the bear saw their head… so…
4
Wei: the polar bear went way… um… I think that’s the end of the story.
5
Hu: have you… have you not heard ‘shy’… and something… something before =
6
Wei: it’s not important, skip, skip. In this excerpt, Hu tries to complete the last sentence of the story by initiating the phrase shy enough (sure enough in the dictogloss passage), which is immediately disagreed with and challenged by his partner, Wei. However, Wei makes no attempt to offer any explanation and is eager to switch their focus onto what he is concerned with (lines 2 and 4). Consequently, in spite of Hu’s repeated 14
Journal Pre-proof invitations to discuss (lines 3 and 5), this disagreement is left unsolved by Wei’s suggestion to skip it (line 6). This type of disagreement can be detrimental for positive peer interaction. Baker (2002) called it ‘confrontation’, when learners reject each other’s ideas without explaining why and do not suggest an alternative. If learners do not face and deal with their disagreements, they can become frustrated and demotivated about continuing to participate in dialogues (Lee, 2011; Tocalli-Beller, 2003). Consequently, the developmental shift from other-regulation to self-regulation, according to sociocultural theory, cannot occur (Wells, 1999). Excerpt 2 (Dictogloss 3, collaborative pattern) 7
Hu: I think er … Chulin was walking over the … over the bridge and … wonding … his own business.
8
Wei: wonding? What’s meaning?
9
Hu: I don’t know. I heard it, or finding?
10
Wei: no, it’s meaningless. I don’t think either of them … is … is ok.
11
Hu: I don’t know, just something like finding or wonding.
12
Wei: but we don’t know the meaning, if … if we write down, the meaning … will be wrong.
13
Hu: okay … um … let’s just delete it, instead of making grammar … I mean meaning wrong, make the
14
meaning wrong.
15
Wei: I think it just means his is not doing his business.
16
Hu: doing his business? Business, shang ye? (repeating ‘business’ in their L1)
17
Wei: of course a bear cannot … not do any business. I mean … um … just doing nothing, nothing par-
18
particular, and … and that’s why … why he fall down, you know, careless.
19
Hu: okay, so Chulin was walking over the bridge, doing nothing particular.
20
Wei: um… [6] or wandering? Maybe you heard wandering?
21
Hu: wondering? Wondering?
22
Wei: no, wandering, w-a-n-d-e-r, you know? Walk … walk lazy ... lazily.
23
Hu: yeah, yeah. Maybe.
24
[8]
25
Wei: but wandering his own business is wrong, again … um … meaningless.
26
Hu: you’re right, and you see, this sentence, Chulin was walking over the bridge, wandering. Walking 15
Journal Pre-proof 27
and wondering, it, it … it sounds weird. Let’s just keep the first one.
28
Wei: doing nothing particular?
29
Hu: yes, I think it … meaningful … close to the meaning. Excerpt 2 contrasts with Excerpt 1 in that the two learners deal with disagreement in a distinctive manner. Similarly, in this excerpt Hu initiates another word he is uncertain about. This time, Wei is not eager to disagree with his partner but invites him to make further clarifications (line 2). Although he fails to offer any explanation for his disagreement and suggests ignoring this similar problem again (line 7), he no longer tries to switch their mutual attention. Instead, he follows Hu’s prompt and proposes two solutions (doing nothing particular/wandering). Despite the fact that neither solution is adequate (minding his own business in the dictogloss passage), the elaborated disagreement, with sufficient explanations, generates two consecutive LREs that are supportive of L2 learning (Swain & Lapkin, 1998). As for Hu, his uncertainty has been resolved through peer assistance. The discussion here may be more valuable for Wei, who has to stretch his linguistic resources to make sense of the ‘nonsense’ based on his understanding of the topic and the approximate sound of the word he has heard.
The results are generally consistent with those from education studies (e.g., Baker, 2002; Burnett, 1993) and the small amount of SLA research (Lee, 2011; Tocalli-Beller, 2003). They all suggest that disagreement allows learners to explore additional information using a variety of argumentation skills such as evaluation, reasoning and explanation, all of which lead to improvement in understanding the content of texts. In addition, the results uphold claims made about the importance of the relationship between disagreement and L2 learning opportunities by comparing learners’ resolution strategies under two sets of circumstances (collaborative vs. non-collaborative). While disagreement can stimulate LREs in collaborative pairs, it may cause confrontation and demotivate non-collaborative dyads. 16
Journal Pre-proof 5.2 Disagreement in co-constructed text The above section has partly answered the research question regarding the effect of disagreement on learner task performance, as it has shown that disagreement is able to encourage negotiation and peer assistance in oral performance. This section examines the jointly reconstructed texts for further evidence to answer the second research question. Insert Table 3 here
Table 3 shows the instances where learners incorporated their discussion of disagreement into their written production, and when they failed to do so. When learners were collaborative, their success in resolving disagreement could be transferred to their written performance. In other words, as long as the upshot of the disagreement discussions was reflected in the jointly-produced written text, the overwhelming majority corresponded to the original dictogloss passage (23 instances out of 25 instances). In comparison, when learners had non-collaborative interactions, about a quarter (26%) of the topics of disagreement suffered from distortions of the original story in the final written product. Another 25% of the disagreements, although not indicated in the texts, impacted on the quality of the co-constructed texts and thus the level of task completeness. The two excerpts below help explain how students dealt with their disagreement and jointly constructed their written texts within different role relationships. Excerpt 3 (Dictogloss 1, non-collaborative pattern) 30
Tu: the guide told … told her to … told her stick your head onto or out, I’m not sure.
31
Li: onto the wall of the tent.
32
Tu: stick your head onto the wall?
33
Li: yeah, I heard it.
34
Tu: um … but I think … um … you know, if you stick your head onto the wall, you’ll get hurt. How …
35
can you … can you= 17
Journal Pre-proof 36
Li: =but I’m sure … I heard it, trust me, just write it.
37
Tu: ok. Stick his … her head=
38
Li: =onto the wall of the tent. This disagreement episode is a content-based one. It differs from an LRE in that the participants here are not focusing on the form of the target language (i.e. wall), nor its meaning; rather, they are concerned with the validity of putting it in the sentence. Although Tu notices the inappropriateness of this and attempts to negotiate with her partner (lines 3 and 5–6), she finally concedes as a result of Li’s insistence in a firm and confident tone (lines 7–9). Previous researchers have argued that interlocutors are less likely to receive higher-level help and hence achieve better performance if consensus is reached without explanation (Baker, 2002; Lee, 2011; Tocalli-Beller, 2003). With little explanation in this excerpt, Tu and Li wrote down ‘the guide told her, ‘don’t worry, stick your head onto the wall of the tent, it will go away’, while in the dictogloss passage, the guide asked the photographer to stick her head out of the tent. In fact, a few sentences before this one ‘the wall of the tent’ is mentioned (i.e., I saw the shape of a young polar bear which was playing with my feet through the wall of the tent). The co-constructed sentence is therefore logically inappropriate and affects the dyad’s completion of the task, since they were asked to convey the original message as closely as possible.
The next example demonstrates how this dyad elaborated on the communication conflict and incorporated it into their writing in a collaborative relationship. Excerpt 4 (Dictogloss 3, collaborative pattern) 1
Li: I heard some … some word like news.
2
Tu: news? I don’t think so, I don’t have it, and news … not make sense in this story.
3
Li: really, I heard news, I’m sure.
4
Tu: you’re making this part more … more miserable.
5
Li: um …the authority reach and find Chulin … Chulin fast asleep. It’s late … (student murmuring) 18
Journal Pre-proof 6
Wai- wait, maybe news is here.
7
Tu: why? Where?
8
Li: the news report said the weather … the time is too late and nothing can be done, so they come, they
9
came the next morning.
10
Tu: um … let me see … news says it’s too late … are you sure? I don’t think I’ve heard that.
11
Li: I’m not sure, but news is somewhere … next to … near this part, definitely.
12
Tu: um … news … news … the authority reach and find … (student murmuring)
13
[8]
14
Li: ah, I understand. News reach the authority.
15
Tu: um? Repeat, repeat it, please.
16
Li: you see (pointing at his notes), news is here, before reach. So the authorities heard the news, and …
17
and … dao guo lai (student using L1, ‘the reverse order’ in English), the news reach the authority.
18
Tu: oh … ok. News reach the authority … news reach … reached the authori- authority … yes, yes,
19
and we just missed another word, scene. News that Chulin fall over the bridge reached the authority
20
and they came to the scene and found Chulin fast sleep on the bridge, the ledge, on the ledge, and it’s
21
getting late, nothing can be done to … to save Chulin, so ... so=
22
Li: so they come back the next morning.
23
Tu: yeah. They returned the next morning.
24
Li: Yes! I think this is the story.
25
Tu: I’m sorry … I can’t agree with you…
26
Li: why?
27
Tu: anymore! I can’t agree with you anymore!
28
(laugh) This excerpt is similar to Excerpt 3 in that they are both initiated by Li suggesting a word (wall in Excerpt 3 and news in Excerpt 4) which is then challenged by his partner. They differ from each other in the way disagreement is dealt with. In Excerpt 3, the disagreement is resolved as a result of Tu’s concession, while in Excerpt 4, a strong consensus is reached (as can been observed from the last few exciting turns by the interlocutors) after deliberate negotiation. During the negotiation, although Li is still convinced that news should be incorporated into the text (line 3), he no longer insists without 19
Journal Pre-proof explaining why, as he did in Excerpt 3. This time, he goes back to the passage and consults his notes for clues (lines 16–17). With Tu’s scaffolding, especially by providing another key word, scene (line 19), the disagreement is finally successfully resolved. The different approaches to problem-solving in Excerpts 3 and 4 also result in a different quality of reconstructed sentence. In their writing, Li and Tu put ‘the news that Chulin fell on the ledge reached the authorities’, which fulfils the task requirement (original sentence: News of Chulin reached the authorities).
The comparison between the above excerpts resonates with previous studies into disagreement (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Schwartz, 1995), suggesting that learners’ extended discussions over disagreement, compared to accepting counter-suggestions or disagreeing without explanations, create more opportunities for learning. Johnson and Johnson (1989, p. 57) even claim that ‘the amount of time spent on explaining correlates highly with the amount learned’. In the collaborative writing task, the length of discussion on disagreement affected the quantity and quality of the negotiation of meaning and the accuracy of the reconstructed texts. Elaborated discussions allowed the pairs sufficient opportunities to experiment with the target language and use it as a tool to find a better, more meaningful and logical solution which reflected the dictogloss story more closely. Disagreement with limited attention paid, irrespective of whether there was a successful resolution, was unable to stretch the learners’ linguistic resources and exploit the learning potential to produce more accurate written texts.
In essence, the difference in discussion length is the difference in the level of mutuality between learners. Since the crux of collaborative dialogue is when learners collaboratively engage with each other, the results of problem-solving and knowledge-building are dependent on the level of involvement. Their involvement means not only the learners’ joint efforts and commitment to task 20
Journal Pre-proof completion, but, more importantly, their engagement with each other’s contributions. Engagement allows learners to listen to, add to, and extend each other’s utterances, pooling their resources to find better solutions and achieve better task performance (Storch, 2001). If they have a high level of engagement, even silent participants can benefit from peer interaction by carefully listening to their partners (Dobao, 2016). Chen (2017) also emphasises the importance of mutuality and argues that mutuality is more influential than equality in setting up learning opportunities. Conversation with high mutuality is fertile ground for peer assistance and feedback, sharing the responsibility for task completion, modifying the target language, and trying out communication and negotiation strategies. A collaborative pattern of peer interaction, then, amplifies the effect of collaborative dialogue which guarantees more success in problem-solving and more opportunities for the co-construction of knowledge.
6 Conclusions The results of this study further extend the volume of research into collaborative dialogue by focusing on how learners resolve disagreements and their oral and written performance. These findings confirm that the importance of collaborative dialogue and patterns of interaction also holds true for resolving disagreement. Specifically, a collaborative pattern of peer dialogue stimulates deliberation over disagreement, which is more likely to result in successful resolution and more accurate co-constructed texts. However, interlocutors in non-collaborative dialogue lack engagement with one another, which leads to short discussions or even ignoring disagreement, and consequently to inaccurate text reconstruction.
As an exploratory and descriptive study, the present research has its shortcomings and more research on this topic is needed. For example, because of its use of a cross-task comparison design, the study 21
Journal Pre-proof fails to examine how collaborative and non-collaborative pairs deal with disagreement when doing the same task. Thus, whether the content of the task plays a role in learners’ problem-solving is unknown. In addition, the task type might also have an effect on the results. Since information in the dictogloss is generally shared between the participants, disagreement may be less frequent than in tasks that involve an information gap (e.g., a jigsaw task). Future research could look into these aspects and expand on the current study to fully depict the nature of collaborative dialogue in communicative tasks and the importance of disagreement.
22
Journal Pre-proof References Adams, R., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2008). Does writing influence learner attention to form? In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela. (Eds.), The Oral-Literate Connection: Perspectives on L2 Speaking, Writing, and Other Media Interactions (pp. 243-266). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Aldosari, A. (2008). The influence of proficiency levels, task types, and social relationships on pair interactions: An EFL context. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Baker, M. (2002). Forms of cooperation in dyadic problem-solving. In P. Salembler & H. Benchkroud (Eds.), Cooperation and Complexity (pp. 1-38). Paris: Hermes. Brooks, L., & Swain, M. (2009). Languaging in collaborative writing: Creation of and response to expertise. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple Perspectives on Interaction (pp. 58-89). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Burnett, R. (1993). Conflict in collaborative decision-making. In C. Thralls & N. Bryler, (Eds.), The Social Perspective and Professional Communication: Diversity and Directions in Research (pp. 144-163). London: SAGE Publications. Chen, W. (2017). The effect of conversation engagement on L2 learning opportunities. ELT journal, 71(3), 329-340. Chinn, C. A., & Clark, D. B. (2013). Learning through collaborative argumentation. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. M. O’Donnell (Eds.), International Handbook of Collaborative Learning (pp. 314-332). New York: Taylor & Francis. Dobao, A. F. (2012). Collaborative dialogue in learner-learner and learner-native speaker interaction. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 229-256. Dobao, A. F. (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: John Benjamins. Dong, T., Anderson, R. C., Kim, I., & Li, Y. (2008). Collaborative reasoning in China and Korea. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 400-424. Ducasse, A. M., & Brown, A. (2009). Assessing paired orals: Raters’ orientation to interaction. Language Testing, 26(3), 423-443. Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A. (2013). Sociocultural Theory and second language development. In M. D. P. García Mayo, M. J. G. Mangado & M. M. Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 129-152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2007) Input, interaction and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (pp. 175-199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Galaczi, E. D. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests? Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 553-574. 23
Journal Pre-proof Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageev, V. S., & Miller, S. M. (2003). Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Smith, M., (2002). Reformulation and the learning of French pronominal verbs in a Canadian French immersion context. Modern Language Journal, 86, 485-507. Lee, M. (2011). Decision making in a collaborative writing task. Proceedings of the 3rd CELC Symposium, National University of Singapore, 159-168. Leeser, M.J., 2004. Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55-81. Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 313-327. Matusov, E. (1996). Intersubjectivity without agreement. Mind, Culture, and Activity: An International Journal, 3(1), 25-45. Niu, R. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18(3-4), 384-402. Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(3), 321-354. Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27, 363-374. Storch, N. (2001). An investigation into the nature of pair work in an ESL classroom and its effect on grammatical development. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158. Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 143-159. Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative Writing in L2 Classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-256). New York: Newbury House. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 97-114). 24
Journal Pre-proof Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320-337. 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., & Watanabe, Y. (2013). Language: Collaborative dialogue as a source of second language learning. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopaedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 3218-3225). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Tan, L. L., Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2010). Pair interactions and mode of communication: Comparing face-to-face and computer mediated communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 27.21-27.24. Tocalli-Beller, A. (2003). Cognitive conflict, disagreement and repetition in collaborative groups: Affective and social dimensions from an insider’s perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 143-71. Cobb,T. (2002). Web Vocabprofile [accessed March 2019 from http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/], an adaptation of Heatley, Nation & Coxhead's (2002) Range. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 144-188). Armonk, NY: ME-Sharpe. 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. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Socio-cultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466.
25
Journal Pre-proof Appendices Appendix A The dictogloss tasks Dictogloss task 1: The Inuit guide I was in the Arctic with an Inuit guide, a long way above the Arctic Circle, where I was taking photographs of seals underwater. After a few days the weather turned bad and we decided to spend the night on the ice. Early the next morning I was lying in the tent, just waking up, when I felt something moving against my feet. I looked to see what it was, and I saw the shape of a young polar bear which was playing with my feet through the wall of the tent. I kept as still as I could, and very quietly woke the guide and told him what was happening. He said, ‘Don’t worry, just stick your head out of the tent and it will go away.’ So I said. ‘Well, you stick your head out of the tent.’ And that’s exactly what he did – he stuck his head out of the tent, and sure enough the polar bear went away. (Taken from English Unlimited, 2011) Retrieved from https://www2.klett.de/sixcms/media.php/10/a08105-53990004_eu_dictogloss_eb.pdf Dictogloss task 3: The bear on the bridge One day, in the Sierra Nevada mountain range, California, Chulin was walking over a bridge, minding his own business. When a car passed, Chulin got scared and jumped over the side of the bridge. Somehow, he managed to catch a ledge and pull himself to safety. News of Chulin reached the authorities and when they arrived at the scene, they found him fast asleep on the ledge. It was getting late so they decided that nothing could be done that night. They returned the next morning with a net, which they positioned under the bridge. They shot Chulin with a tranquilizer dart and waited for him to fall asleep. They used a pole to push groggy Chulin off the ledge and into the net. Chulin was lowered to the ground and set free. ‘My wife is never going to believe this’, Chulin thought to himself as he went on his way. (Taken from Keddie, 2010) Retrieved from http://lessonstream.org/2011/01/10/the-blob-on-the-bridge/
26
Journal Pre-proof Appendix B Transcription symbols ()
Para- and extra-linguistic features, e.g. (laugh)
… (multiple periods)
Short pause, between 0.5 and 3 seconds
[5]
Longer pause; the number in square brackets indicates the length of the pause in seconds
=
The ‘equals’ sign indicates interruptions or contiguous utterances
Wor-
Only part of a word is pronounced; i.e., utterances are cut off or unfinished
27
Journal Pre-proof This work is an individual project, so it does not involve any co-author. Funding: This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China; Title of the Project: Assessment of EFL learners’ ability for collaboration [grant number: 17CYY021].
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 2 Categorization of co-constructed texts
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 1 Categorization of disagreement episodes
Table 1 coding of the data No.
Excerpt
Type of text
Type of disagreement
Corresponding to the original passage Chen: they shoot something to the bear. Gao: yeah, they shoot something.
Although the participants could not name ‘tranquilizer dart’ as
Chen: with a…
some type of sleeping drug in a needle to make him fall
a complete expression, they wrote ‘They shot Chulin with asleep’, which corresponds to the meaning in the original text
Gao: to make him…
- They shot Chulin with a tranquilizer dart and waited for him
Chen: down… drop. 1
Gao: no, no, I think not this case. You know… um… Chulin is very big, a big bear. They can’t carry him when he is… he is… um… conscious, so they make him asleep first and then… drop down. Chen: okay, okay. It’s like a type of drug, like sleeping pills. Gao: yeah, something like that.
Elaborated
Reflected
(content-based)
in text
Resolved
to fall asleep. This suggests they had understood the message of the text.
Deviating from the original passage Wang: the author let the guide stick his head out of the tent. He did so. 2
Immediate
Zhou: no, no, no. The author, she, herself… she
The disagreement is immediately resolved after its initiation,
agreement
stick his… her head out.
with
confession
of
his
uncertainty.
In
the
co-constructed text, the dyad put ‘I was asked to stick my
(content-based)
Wang: okay. I’m confused.
Wang’s
head out of the tent and I did so as required’. However, in the original passage, the first person narrator (the photographer)
Zhou: definitely.
did not stick her head out of the tent but the guide did. Affecting task completion
Li: I heard feet or something. Tong: no, it’s head.
The disagreement is left unresolved as Tong directs their attention to the construction of the last sentence. In the
Li: yes, but he also mentions feet. 3
Tong: it doesn’t matter, let’s focus on the main point. Li: but… Tong: and the last sentence… he sticks his head out of the tent and polar bear went away.
Ignored
Absent in
written output, they wrote ‘I was lying in the tent, just
(content-based)
text
waking up, finding the shape of a young polar bear outside
Unresolved
the tent’, which fails to explain the reason for the author noticing the polar bear (I was lying in the tent, just waking up, when I felt something moving against my feet in the original story).
Not affecting task completion
Sun: The guide said just stick his head out of the tent. He did as he told to stick his head out, then the polar bear went away.
Although Tian disagrees with Sun’s sentence and identifies the
Tian: I think this sentence is wrong, there are grammar mistake. He did as he told, did what? 4
This is a… this is a… Zhuang yu cong ju (learner using L1 for negotiation, ‘adverbial clause’ in English). Sun: um… [5] my grammar is poor. Tian: then just delete it. Sun: okay.
grammar problem, the dyad fail to reformulate the sentence Failed (form-based)
and want to give up. In the reconstructed text, they simply put ‘He did stick his head out and then the polar bear went away’. The failure to correct the grammatically problematic sentence does not affect the meaning they intended to deliver which is consistent with the message from the dictogloss story.
Journal Pre-proof Resolved Elaborated
Non-collaborative (Task 1) Collaborative (Task 3)
Unresolved
Immediate agreement
Ignored
Failed
Total
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
20 (38%)
11 (20%)
12 (23%)
10 (19%)
53
26 (67%)
6 (15%)
2 (5%)
5 (13%)
39
Table 2 Patterns of interaction and resolutions in disagreement
Journal Pre-proof Disagreement reflected in text Corresponding Deviating from to the original the original passage passage N (%) N (%)
Disagreement absent in text Affecting Not affecting task task completion completion N (%) N (%)
Total
Non-collaborative (Task 1)
18 (34%)
14 (26%)
13 (25%)
8 (15%)
53
Collaborative (Task 3)
23 (59%)
2 (5%)
3 (8%)
11 (28%)
39
Table 3 Disagreement in the co-constructed texts