Exploring peer support among young learners during regular EFL classroom lessons

This study explored peer support among grade 5 learners of English as a foreign language (N = 24) interacting during regular lessons. Grounded in sociocultural theory and applying mixed-method research methodology, this to what extent how young one another classroom tasks targeting lexical phrases. Moreover, it investigated such accounts for learning opportunities. Students relied mainly on linguistic through suggesting or using resources while social–emotional offering support, giving positive feedback, inviting partners’ participation was limited. The analysis also revealed instances lack the form reprimanding, impatience, expressing awareness partner's contribution, disrespecting peer's which, however, differed widely across pairs. Diese Studie untersuchte den Peer Support von Lernenden der 5. Klasse im Englischunterricht 24), die während des regulären Unterrichts interagierten. Auf Grundlage soziokulturellen Theorie und unter Anwendung Mixed-Methods-Forschungsmethodik wurde untersucht, inwieweit wie sich junge Lernende gegenseitig bei Lernaufgaben, auf lexikalische Phrasen abzielen, unterstützen,. Darüber hinaus diese Unterstützung Lernmöglichkeiten beeinflusst. Die verließen primär sprachlichen durch das Vorschlagen oder Verwenden Ressourcen, sozial-emotionale Anbieten Support, Geben positivem Feedback Einladen Partners zur Mitarbeit nur begrenztem Umfang erfolgte. Analyse ergab auch Fälle mangelnder Form Ermahnungen, Ungeduld, Wahrnehmung für Beitrag Respektlosigkeit gegenüber Ressourcen Partners. unterschieden jedoch Paar zu stark. Pair small group work is commonly used method classrooms afford students opportunities interact with their peers practice that they are (Adams & Oliver, 2019). case (YL), which term children age range 7 11 (Berman, 2004; Philp et al. 2014). Research YL has informed us midst rapid cognitive metalinguistic development helps them “focus manipulate form, treat an object inspection make comparisons between languages” (Tellier Roehr-Brackin, 2017, p. 24). What more, can resolve difficulties certain forms if supported by use these meaningful contexts al., Studies have shown low FL proficiency negotiate meaning (García Mayo Lázaro Ibarrola, 2015). (sometimes referred assistance scaffolding) (FL) second (SL) when working collaboratively variety strategies doing so (Azkarai Agirre, 2016; Davin Donato, 2013; Gagné Parks, Ibarrola Hidalgo, 2017; Lázaro-Ibarrola Azpilicueta-Martinez, 2022; Pinter, 2007). assist primarily correcting each other, other repetitions, completing utterances partner having difficulty (Davin 2013). Doing so, may fill gaps own understanding, correct misconceptions about language, strengthen connections new previously learned (Philp Nevertheless, line predominantly focused nature attending much less social emotional domain. limitation because implies qualities go beyond realm aspects crucial. For example, includes attributes empathy, encouragement, compassion help receiver (Penney, 2018, 2). To be able receive benefit from it, needs willing ask open oneself experience giver. help-giver benefits makes helper feel valued needed 1985, 4). Little known links classrooms, only two studies available. However, Pinter (2007) involved pair, Donato (2013) task. It follows more descriptive understand complex its role learning. kind appears crucial mutual understanding creation space sharing given situation addressing problems arise. without ignore factors impacting interactions. bearing mind essential cognition emotion inseparable (Swain, 2013), had main aims. primary aim investigate 11-year-old school organized similar pairs common lessons EFL classrooms. focus there no clear expert flow not directed student but rather distributed both pair collaborative activity. secondary explore exploratory contributes available body pedagogy providing picture activities. grounded theory, been generally framed asserts develop cognitively teacher, parent, skilled process mediated (Lantolf Thorne, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978). In words, (including speaking writing activity) functions voluntary memory, reasoning, attention 2006). interaction together complete task potential mediate Swain (2006) coined languaging “refers making shaping knowledge language. Languaging problem solutions, whether word use, best structure sentence” (p. 98). context interaction, episodes talk construction joint L2 2010). attempt solve problem, construct analyze forms, enable learn thus improving use. These language-related (LREs) were defined Lapkin (1998, 326) “any part dialogue where producing, question themselves others.” LREs reflect often seek, provide, (Swain 1998). Therefore, students’ engagement resolution indication provided. involving clear-cut indicated although tend engage correctly LREs, grammatical mechanical (punctuation, spelling) ones (Calzada García Mayo, 2020; see 2017). […] distance actual developmental level determined independent problem-solving under adult guidance collaboration capable (Vygotsky, 1978; 86). matters within ZPD (or mediation) provided contingent student's need removed demonstrates ability function independently Only developmentally appropriate lead performance. conducted (Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2000) underscored different perspective ZPD, namely does necessarily imply novice eventually hands down (see Xi Lantolf, 2021 discussion scaffolding). unlike situations learners, neither provide nor responsible supporting another. Rather than embracing language-learning activity, likely concerned completion (Guk Kellogg, They even comprehend before As Stone (1993), puts “in scaffolding situation, child led participate activity whose full yet fulfilled. That is, acting anticipation must actions he she engage” 354). Hence, adjusted abilities member pair/group involve changing relationships zone course (Lantof Poehner, 2008). interpretation transformation resonates Holzman's (2009) view zone, space, distance. reflects Vygotsky's (2004, 202) “collective together”; heterogeneous relationship. people something “active agents who change well itself engaged in” (Wertsch 1991, 8) plausible depict occurs seems be, extent, reflected (1994) called collective scaffolding. sources orientation pooling order guide found students, mixed-proficiency dyads, creating list questions Spanish Researchers claimed early particular, grouping “based compatible personalities important based level” 46). 10-year-old Hungarian children's spot-the-difference asked several sets spot-the-differences tasks, observable changes first last repetition. showed collaborate effectively, take responsibility one's appreciate needs. Using example twice same task, Pinter's assisted appreciated assistance, immediately made made. Importantly, points features mediating effective assistance. applied allowed tackle type produce target comfortably situation. mentioned findings mixed regard collaborate, affects learning, at play. While some that, regardless age, together, overcome disagreements, conflicts (Oliver, Philp, Duchesne, 2017), establish non-collaborative patterns Kopinska, Although equally work, seem other's contributions 2020), indicates degree mutuality pattern (Storch, 2002). vein, helping (Azpilicueta-Martinez, prefer individual individually (Kopinska Azkarai, 2020). employed tasks. Parks intensive elementary-level Grade 6 class (ESL) scaffolded carrying out cooperative With regards used, strategies, request other-correction accounting 77.8% total number. contrast, comprehension checks rare (9%). worth mentioning contrast Guk Kellogg's tended completion, regarded opportunity seemed arisen already established culture. fact, teacher's assisting performing “good thing” cooperation leads rewarding all involved. investigation 20 CLIL context, Hidalgo (2017) resorting utterance completions, acknowledgments, repetitions. researchers stressed necessity attend perform. confirm successful communication (I want let my know I understood said.), acknowledgments completions. underlined signal indicate concentration messages Foster 2005). Slightly come Azpilicueta-Martinez (2022), L1 negotiation adults storytelling generated significantly higher rates amount conversational adjustments adults. produced self-repetitions. authors speculate “children reluctant consider reliable source copied” 480). On hand, high number interpreted demanded accomplished. Likewise, clarification requests suggest show non-understanding. Furthermore, general education pointed complexity simultaneously social, linguistic, discursive literacy practices (see, e.g., Martin-Beltrán may, building affection care. joking humor, acknowledge personal connections, agreement, recognize shared feelings/opinions (Martin-Beltrán physical closeness fives, thumbs-ups, smiling, patting someone back. redirecting encouraging persistence (You do it!) feedback compliments 156). Such enhances self- regulation. Overall, report relation benefits. another, Some associated meaning. signaled rely other-corrections, correspond typically (Forster merely limited personalities, relationships, culture classroom. point importance support. YL's necessary so. answers following questions. ways tasks? account opportunities? day alternative Germany. Alternative schools public private schools, special curriculum, flexible program traditional schools. One school's aims implement individualized learner-centered approach teaching encouraged speed accomplish either groups. curriculum three week. participants German EFL, taught teacher. purpose article, interactions six composed five reported Table 1 below). formed results test taken 4 months study. teacher confirmed consisted friends acquaintances objections concerning composition Wiebke Alina F 110 108 data collected winter term, over Learners interacted exercises brief introduction topic, short video listening conversations shop, exercises. final write watched present class. targeted chunks Would you like a…/I'd …/Is everything?/Thanks anyway introduced time. majority cannot directly translated into consequence, pose them. Data employing audio recordings interactions, unstructured observation notes lessons, documentary written work. corresponded task-based (TBLT) framework (Ellis, 2003), mere carried 10 week 2 completed entirely pairs, compared discussed (2, 3, 4, 8, 9). Each took min except (20–30 min) matching vocabulary box (3 each). Preparation exercise Who says customer, shopkeeper? Put phrases group. Picture Q A Multiple choices Gap-fill Ordering Reordering Discussion Can describe shoes you're wearing now? words did learn? Vocabulary Dialogue initial stage followed principles discourse (Mercer, 2005), seeks “how spoken tool thinking collectively…to pursue educational activities” 138), arise, moment-by-moment allows researcher RQ1) transcribed complemented revising transcript file adding comments non-verbal event potentially relevant information segmented on- off-task talk. on-task talk, bring away considered. talked (1) hand (task-related episodes) (2) (language-related episodes). illustrated Excerpt below, task-related (TREs) negotiating assigning roles discussing next 2001). comes Zak Elias talking roles. appear italics. Additional contextual brackets Appendix transcription conventions). Episodes coded Lapkin's (1998) definition Section above. below offers resolved LRE Fenna Nora. Nora initiates (turn 136) provides shelf 140), resolves presenting target-like 141). TREs units requested offered identified (e.g., turns 139–140 3). Strategies issues related explaining procedure checking Linguistic lexis, morpho-syntax, pronunciation, content solution 3 categories examples data). due numerous overlaps distinctions coding strategies. explaining. Many attributed pragmatic particular strategy. problematic strategy suggested. According Wells (1999), suggestion move draws decision-making process. question, requires response, expect require 2001, 231). typical usually statement uttered rising intonation. statements mostly answered simple confirmation (“yes”), repetition, disconfirmation (“no”), sometimes counter-suggestion Storch, exemplified excerpt suggests solution. accepted turn problem. A: Let's see. W: Not Let me How watch? P: So says… N: shopkeeper Just now! (angry tone) You four! Similar suggesting, requesting (confirmation check) many instances, sought being correct, actually implied suggestion. those seek “confirmation response suggestion” 165). utterances. distinction seeking (And too, right?) 4. acknowledged disconfirm hypothesis indeed implicit mainstream 2017) Two found. (continuer) participation. Continuer “instance interlocutor takes interest speaker's encourages him/her continue” (Foster 2005, 420) speaker incomplete intonation (Gagné 2013, 207). illustrates strategy, namely, holding pen write. She notices looking inactive. join 89) respond, sad 90). attempts invite her again, expresses negative stance taking fully scribe (92). then responds allowing 93). requested. Requesting adapted (2013, 206) his/her interlocutors task.” most salient information, clarification, examples). Requests here eliciting morphosyntax, spelling, pronunciation. included responses explanations objective indicating morphosyntax hesitant incorrect such, hesitation considered “an indirect assistance”