Metatalk in a Pair Work Activity: Level of Engagement and Implications for Language Development
Abstract
This classroom-based study investigated the metatalk of learners working in pairs on a text reconstruction task. Specifically, the study investigated the learners' level of engagement with linguistic choices, and whether the level of engagement affected subsequent language development. Data were collected over a 2-week period. In the first week, students completed one version of a text reconstruction task in pairs and all pair talk was audio recorded. In the second week, students completed another version of the task individually. Analysis of the pair talk data showed that pairs attended to a range of grammatical and lexical items, but that the nature of their engagement ranged from elaborate to limited. Elaborate engagement was operationalised as instances where learners deliberated and discussed language items and limited engagement where one learner made a suggestion and the other repeated, acknowledged or did not respond to the suggestion. Analysis of learner performance on a set of items that were common to the two versions of the text reconstruction task suggests that elaborate engagement was more facilitative of learning/consolidation for both members of the dyad than limited engagement. The findings also suggest that repetitions, common in language classes, need further investigation.
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?
In Storch's model, engagement is limited to cognitive engagement with language.
“Thus, in Storch's model, engagement is limited to cognitive engagement with language.”
From Exploring Engagement in Tasks in the Language Classroom (2016) · cites this paper as Storch, 2008
Storch (2008) identified instances in which peers talk about language use or provide correction, and these language-related episodes have been adopted as the primary unit of analysis for engagement in much recent work.
“With regard to engagement with language specifically, Storch (2008) identified instances in which peers talk about language use or provide correction. These language-related episodes (LREs) (Kowal & Swain, 1994) have been adopted as the primary unit of analysis for engagement in much of more recent work (e.g., Baralt et al., 2016; Dobao, 2016; García Mayo & Azkarai, 2016; Svalberg, 2012).”
From Exploring Engagement in Tasks in the Language Classroom (2016) · cites this paper as Storch, 2008
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 54 · Cited by 329
- Authors
- Storch, N.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Storch, Neomy
- ORCID
- Storch, Neomy
- Venue
- Language Awareness
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-06-16
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 95-114
- ISSN
- 0965-8416 (ISSN-L)
- 1747-7565
- OpenAlex
- W2166347250
- Cited by
- 329
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 66.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Language Awareness (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
- metatalk, pair work, student engagement, language development, collaborative language learning, learner talk
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