Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue

By Michael J. Leeser. 2004

426 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/94f4bdd617e091845a26187beb441abfd5963141

How researchers see this paper

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

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. Hossein Nassaji
2. Masatoshi Sato
3. N. Storch
4. A. Dobao
5. S. Loewen
6. Kazuya Saito
7. Icy Lee
8. Shulin Yu

In Language and Linguistics

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

In Literature and Literary Theory

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

Citations in the corpus

• The effect of collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting (2019, methodology): “54), especially among learners in the lower proficiency bands (Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2007; Leeser, 2004; Nassaji & Tian, 2010).”
• Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs (2010, background): “There are other factors that can affect the nature of interaction such as the composition of the group (Bennett & Cass, 1988; Tocalli-Beller, 2003), participants’ shared goals and assumptions, learners’ strategies, and their cognitive and developmental readiness (Nassaji & Cumming, 2000; Leeser, 200”
• Student Collaboration and Teacher-Directed Classroom Dynamic Assessment: A Complementary Pairing (2013, background): “Collaborative writing has garnered attention with L2 acquisition researchers working within the sociocultural theory (Foster, 2005; Leeser, 2004; Storch, 2001, 2005, 2011) because as talk is vocalized, its”
• Collaborative Writing in L2 Contexts: Processes, Outcomes, and Future Directions (2011, background): “One of the early studies to consider the impact of proficiency pairing on attention to language use was by Leeser (2004).”
• Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners (2007, methodology): “2 For more detailed discussion about LREs and examples, see Swain and Lapkin (1998) and Leeser (2004).”
• The Contribution of Collaborative and Individual Tasks to the Acquisition of L2 Vocabulary (2008, methodology): “number of empirical studies have suggested that collaborative tasks enhance learning opportuni ties in different settings: intensive ESL programs (Ross-Feldman, in press; Watanabe 8c Swain, 2007; Williams, 1999), content-based Spanish courses (Leeser, 2004), and French immersion programs”
• Pairing learners in pair work activity (2013, methodology): “These findings are in line with Leeser’s (2004) findings. The L–L pairs seemed more intent on task completion (generating ideas for the composition) than on deliberations about language use. Deliberations about word meanings seemed to predominate, and the learners at times resorted to their L1 to pr”
• Re-examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers (2011, result): “This awareness seems to support previous research on the potential role of pretask activities to focus learner attention to target features as well as the importance of post-task activities to check task performance (Skehan, 1996, 1998; Williams, 1999; Schmidt, 2001; Skehan & Foster, 2001; Leeser, 2”
• Raising language awareness in peer interaction: a cross-context, cross-methodology examination (2012, background): “…case of adults) or see language as an object (in the case of younger learners) is questionable unless the task itself is designed to achieve this (e.g. dictogloss: Kowal & Swain, 1997; Swain, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 2001; consciousness-raising tasks: Eckerth, 2008; Fotos & Ellis, 1999; Leeser, 2004).”
• The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners (2008, methodology): “[peanut (Chinese), see (showing how to spell it)] Next, the resolution of the LREs was coded following Swain (1998) and Leeser (2004) as correctly resolved (Type 1), unresolved (Type 2), and incorrectly resolved (Type 3).”
• Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018, background): “For example, Garcı́a Mayo & Pica (2000) replicated Pica et al. (1996) with English-major university students whose paper-based TOEFL scores ranged from 580 to 630.”
• Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes (2007, methodology): “Following the work of Swain (1998) and Leeser (2004), LREs were also coded for whether the outcome reached was correct/acceptable ( ), incorrect/unacceptable (x) or unresolved (?).”
• Vocabulary learning in collaborative tasks: A comparison of pair and small group work (2014, background): “However, attention to grammar can be enhanced by grammar review lessons or activities presented prior to the collaborative writing task (e.g. Leeser, 2004; Swain & Lapkin, 1998).”