Languaging and learning compared across EFL course delivery modes
Creators: name: Sampson, Andrew
Publisher: name: Lancaster University
Year: 2019
Subjects: Languaging
Vygotsky
sociocultural theory
learning
peer interaction

description: The present study investigates the effects of delivery mode in adult EFL
      courses by comparing a) languaging, the “process of making meaning and
      shaping knowledge and experience through language” (Swain 2006: 98) and b)
      learning in three settings that are representative of common course
      delivery modes: i) face-to-face group classes; ii) one-to-one private
      tutoring sessions; and iii) individual online courses. Conducted within a
      Vygotskian (1978, 1987) sociocultural framework, data for this
      quasi-experimental study include recordings of pairwork in group classes
      and of tutor-learner interaction in one-to-one classes, and also
      think-alouds of individuals in online courses, thus drawing on Vygotsky’s
      concept of inner speech and more recent work on self-scaffolding (Holton
      &amp; Clark 2006; Knouzi, Swain, Lapkin, &amp; Brooks 2009). The
      analysis is a mixed-methods approach of microgenetic qualitative analysis
      of learner talk and quantitative analysis of LRE number, focus, resolution
      and engagement, and includes questionnaire responses and scores from
      post-tests. Findings indicate that languaging, evidenced in
      Language-Related Episodes (LREs), occurred in all three modes. While
      individuals in the online mode produced significantly fewer LREs than
      learner-learner dyads in group classes or learner-teacher dyads in
      one-to-one tuition, online individual numbers were similar to LREs
      initiated by each learner in learner-learner dyads, suggesting individuals
      identified language problems with a similar frequency as their group
      counterparts. Learner-learner dyads in group classes and one-to-one
      learner-teacher dyads produced similar numbers of LREs, but one-to-one
      episodes were more closely associated with learning than group or
      individual LREs, as observed in instances of microgenetic development and
      post-test responses. This may be because one-to-one episodes were better
      quality in terms of correct resolution and greater resolution by the
      learner, rather than the teacher. In one-to-one, resolutions followed
      scaffolding in the form of elicitations and prompts contingent on
      learners’ tentative responses and teachers’ perceptions of learners’
      current knowledge. Such teacher guidance towards learner resolution may
      have made outcomes more memorable for subsequent post-test recall.
      Regarding LRE focus, dyads produced more grammar LREs than online
      individuals, which may relate to habitual grammar-focussed learning
      practices of face-to-face classrooms, whereas one-to-one dyads focussed
      more on spelling, suggesting teachers sensed their role was to correct
      learners’ written language. Regarding LRE resolution, proportions of
      correctly resolved episodes were similar between group and online
      individual modes, although the individual proportion was based on fewer
      LREs, suggesting individual learners did not initiate episodes they would
      be unable to resolve. The extent to which LREs were characterised by
      limited engagement (linguistic preferences were stated without further
      deliberation) or elaborate engagement (there was evidence of a cognitive
      self-regulation strategy) did not differ significantly between modes. In
      learner-learner interaction in group mode, the prominence of LREs
      characterised by limited engagement in one learner and elaborate
      engagement in the other suggested it was unnecessary for both participants
      to be elaborately engaged for episodes to be languaged and resolved.
      Learners across modes averaged post-test scores of 70% to 80% of items
      resolved in agreement with LRE resolution in the task, suggesting
      associations between languaging and learning. However, group learners
      attempted significantly fewer test items relating to their LREs than
      individual or one-to-one learners, which suggests that forms languaged
      individually or with a tutor are more memorable. Methodological
      implications of this research include the limitation of think aloud
      protocols in making microgenetic development visible to the researcher,
      while pedagogical recommendations include: i) that learners in all modes
      be exposed to tasks that focus on form and provide languaging
      opportunities; ii) that group learners be encouraged to seek gaps in their
      interlocutor’s knowledge by asking the kinds of questions that teachers
      ask; iii) that teachers in one-to-one contexts scaffold learners towards
      resolving LREs; and iv) that online learners seek out an interlocutor –
      whether a teacher or another learner – the presence of which appears to be
      positively associated with LRE numbers, correct resolution and
      microgenetic development. Directions for future research are discussed.