Patterns of Interaction in ESL Pair Work

By N. Storch. 2002

979 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/dd39c8fa8cd1b13d824995935e808c8cfd66efd0

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. Masatoshi Sato
2. N. Storch
3. A. Dobao
4. Icy Lee
5. Hossein Nassaji
6. Kim McDonough
7. Shulin Yu
8. Youjin Kim

In Language and Linguistics

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

Citations in the corpus

• Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes (2007, background): “Studies by Donato (1988; 1994) and Storch (2002; 2005) have shown evidence of ‘collective scaffolding’, a process whereby learners pool their linguistic resources in order to reach resolutions to language-related problems they encounter.”
• Task preference, affective response, and engagement in L2 use in a US university context (2017, background): “These aspects of performance have been associated with a pattern of interactions that is more conducive to L2 learning (Storch, 2002).”
• Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work (2012, background): “Researchers applying sociocultural theory to the study of L2 learning maintain that learners can have a positive impact on each other’s development because they can act as both novices and experts (e.g., Antón & DiCamilla, 1998; Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2000, 2001; Storch, 2002; Swain & Lapkin, 1998).”
• Collaborative Writing in L2 Contexts: Processes, Outcomes, and Future Directions (2011, methodology): “…learners form when completing collaborative tasks is important, as research has shown that not all pair work is necessarily collaborative, and it is collaboration that creates the conditions conducive to language learning rather than pair work per se (Aldosari, 2008; Storch, 2002, 2009).”
• Exploring Engagement in Tasks in the Language Classroom (2016, background): “Storch (2008) has identified a set appropriate to the language learning context, which we discuss in the section on “Engagement in Task-Based Interaction.”
• Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014) (2016, background): “Storch (2002) revealed four patterns of dyadic interaction in L2 collaborative tasks: collaborative, expert/novice, dominant/passive, and dominant/dominant based on two indexes proposed by Damon & Phelps (1989): ‘equality (the degree of control or authority over the tasks) and mutuality (the level…”
• Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018, background): “Numerous studies, both experimental and descriptive, with L1 or L2 interlocutors, have employed LREs to identify learning opportunities during interaction (e.g. Swain & Lapkin 1998; Williams 2001b; Storch 2002; Loewen 2005; Kim & McDonough 2008; Yilmaz 2011; Garcı́a Mayo & Azkarai 2016).”
• The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners (2008, background): “In terms of the dynamics between learners, Storch (2001, 2002a, 2002b) has identified four types of pair dynamics that may influence the degree of collaboration that occurs during pair activities.”
• Interactional Competence: Conceptualisations, Operationalisations, and Outstanding Questions (2018, background): “…of literature also indicated that the paired/group test construct encompasses interaction management features, such as turn-taking management, topic initiation, negotiation and development, and interactive listening (Ducasse & Brown, 2009; Galaczi, 2014; May, 2009; Riggenbach, 1998; Storch, 2002).”
• The influence of interlocutor proficiency in a paired oral assessment (2009, background): “Galaczi ultimately described three primary interaction types: collaborative, parallel, and asymmetric, which were defined in terms of ‘equality’ and ‘mutuality’ (Damon & Phelps, 1989; Storch, 2002; Table 1).”
• Formative Assessment: Assessment Is for Self-regulated Learning (2012, methodology): “…monitoring, and critical reflection (Schraw and Moshman 1995; Stiggins 2002), requires creating and sustaining mutual learning relationships (Storch 2002; Goos et al. 2002; Putney and Broughton 2011), positive social interdependence (Johnson and Johnson 1975, 1998; Barron 2000;Mercer; 2004;…”
• Formative Assessment: Policy, Perspectives and Practice. (2011, background): “…theoretical frame of FA as the ‘theory of formative assessment’ draws considerable energy from research that emphasizes mutual learning relationships (Storch, 2002), positive interdependence (Johnson & Johnson, 1975) and a more open classroom which values the fluidity of tacit knowledge (Polanyi,…”