Learner-Learner Interaction during Pair and Small Group Activities in a Thai EFL Context.

By Kim McDonough. 2004

286 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6179ae7d6c50f9b9b4e665aa2b9850fe9034b974

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Language and Linguistics

1. Hossein Nassaji
2. Masatoshi Sato
3. R. Lyster
4. S. Loewen
5. Kazuya Saito
6. N. Storch
7. Kim McDonough
8. R. Ellis

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. Hossein Nassaji
2. Masatoshi Sato
3. R. Lyster
4. Kazuya Saito
5. S. Loewen
6. N. Storch
7. R. Ellis
8. Kim McDonough

Citations in the corpus

• Teachers' and Learners' Reactions to a Task-Based EFL Course in Thailand (2007, background): “However, they have expressed some reservations about the greater emphasis on expressing and sharing opinions (Hui, 1997) and about the value of peer interaction (McDonough, 2004).”
• Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy (2009, background): “The use of collaborative writing in general, and for assessment purposes in particular, is far less common, partly perhaps because of the observed reluctance of learners to engage in co-authoring (see, for example, McDonough, 2004).”
• The effect of collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting (2019, background): “Collaborative tasks place the learner at the centre of the learning process and have been claimed to promote learners’ autonomy and genuine involvement, to foster interaction and knowledge co-construction and to increase speaking time (McDonough, 2004; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007).”
• Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018, background): “In her investigation of L2 pair interaction among English as a foreign language (EFL) learners in Thailand, McDonough (2004) found that learners rarely modified their output in response to peer feedback, choosing instead to produce self-initiated modified output.”
• Raising language awareness in peer interaction: a cross-context, cross-methodology examination (2012, background): “…learner detects ‘the output has been erroneous or inappropriate, halts the speech flow, and finally executes a correction’ (p. 315), indicating that SMO could be a reliable indicator of language awareness (see also Buckwalter, 2001; McDonough, 2004; Shehadeh, 1999, 2001; Shonerd, 1994; Toth, 2008).”
• Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities (2011, background): “…& Swain, 2007, 2008; Kim & McDonough, 2008), pair dynamics between learners (Storch, 2002a, 2002b; Watanabe & Swain, 2007), level of engagement (McDonough, 2004; Storch, 2008), planning time (Philp et al., 2006), and task type (Swain & Lapkin, 2001; García Mayo, 2002; Alegría de la Colina &…”
• Understanding Chinese learners' willingness to communicate in a New Zealand ESL classroom: A multiple case study drawing on the theory of planned behavior (2013, background): “In his study of learners’ participation in a Thai context, McDonough (2004) reported that learners who participated more during pair and small group activities demonstrated improved production of the target form.”
• Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes (2007, background): “Such research is also needed because not all language learners (nor teachers, see McDonough, 2004) seem convinced of the merits of small group and pair work.”
• Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: what factors foster a focus on form? (2010, background): “Most studies have been interventions in which the researcher provided the tasks ( Adams, 2004 ; Gass, Mackey & Feldman, 2005 ; Garcia Mayo & Pica, 2000 ; McDonough, 2004 ).”
• The Contribution of Collaborative and Individual Tasks to the Acquisition of L2 Vocabulary (2008, background): “portunities that arise during collaborative work by focusing on the occurrence of language-related episodes (LREs), defined by Swain and Lapkin (1998) as "any part of a dialogue where the stu dents talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or correct themselves or othe”