9. PEER-PEER DIALOGUE AS A MEANS OF SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING
Abstract
From the theoretical perspective of a sociocultural theory of mind, cognition and knowledge are dialogically constructed. Embedded in this theoretical framework, this chapter reviews research studies in which peer-peer dialogue is linked to second language learning as students engage in writing, speaking, listening and reading activities. The review takes the stance that the type of dialogue of particular significance in the language learning process is collaborative dialogue, or that which occurs when learners encounter linguistic problems and attempt to solve them together. In such conditions language is used both as a communicative and cognitive tool. From the studies reviewed, we conclude that peer-peer collaborative dialogue mediates second language learning. We also conclude that although the studies reported few adverse effects of peer collaboration, teaching learners how and why to collaborate may be important to enhance peer-mediated learning. The chapter calls for more research which provides clear evidence of the connections between peer-peer dialogue and second language learning and more studies which investigate longer term learning. Such studies linking peer-peer dialogue to language learning can be instructive for teachers, researchers, and learners, and make us all more aware of the process of learning a second language.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Students, including those of the same L2 proficiency, can and do learn from one another when working in pairs or small groups.
“Moreover, contra Bruton, students, including those of the same L2 proficiency, can and do learn from one another when working in pairs or small groups (Eckerth, 2008;Swain, Brooks, & Tocalli-Beller, 2002).”
From In Defense of Tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and Real Issues (2016) · cites this paper as Swain, Brooks, & Tocalli-Beller, 2002
Cited by
Sorted by citations
To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002 · Cited by 843 · see citing works
Legislation by Hypothesis: The Case of Task-Based Instruction
Swan, M. (2005) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/ami013 · Cited by 481 · see citing works
In Defense of Tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and Real Issues
Long, M. H. (2016) · Annual Review of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1017/s0267190515000057 · Cited by 359 · see citing works
“What Do You Want to Say?” How Adolescents Use Translanguaging to Expand Learning Opportunities
Martin-Beltrán, M. (2014) · International Multilingual Research Journal · doi:10.1080/19313152.2014.914372 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Hu, G., & Lam, S. T. E. (2010) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9086-1 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Collective peer scaffolding, self-revision, and writing progress of novice EFL learners :
Memari Hanjani, A. (2019) · International Journal of English Studies · doi:10.6018/ijes.331771 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Kim, S. (2023) · Higher Education Research & Development · doi:10.1080/07294360.2022.2073983 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2002-03
- Volume
- 22
- Pages
- 171-185
- ISSN
- 0267-1905 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-6356
- OpenAlex
- W2149205793
- Cited by
- 340
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 20
- FWCI
- 45.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- second language acquisition, collaborative dialogue, peer-mediated learning, peer collaboration, learning mediation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review