Cited by 332EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench Language Learning MethodsSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness1

Kowal, Maria, Swain, Merrill·1994·Language Awareness

Abstract

This paper presents data of 13 and 14 year old intermediate and advanced learners of French working collaboratively to complete a text reconstruction task. The task was designed to focus the students’ attention and discussion on the form of the message they were constructing. It was hypothesised that this kind of opportunity to produce language would promote their language learning by (1) making them aware of gaps in their existing knowledge which they would subsequently seek to fill; (2) raising their awareness of the links between the form, function and meaning of words as they worked to construct their intended message; and (3) obtaining feedback that they would receive from their peers and their teacher as they completed the task. The results support the hypothesis and also provide rich insights for teachers, researchers and curriculum planners into the language learning process in a collaborative setting; the students’ understandings of how language ‘works'; and the effects of certain grouping patterns on the ensuing student talk.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09658416.1994.9959845

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • 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 Kowal & Swain, 1994

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kowal, M., & Swain, M.
Venue
Language Awareness
Published
1994-01
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
73-93
ISSN
  • 0965-8416 (ISSN-L)
  • 1747-7565
OpenAlex
W2083536757
Cited by
332
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 19
FWCI
23.60
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 › Linguistics and Language › French Language Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
French as a foreign language, high school students, peer feedback, teacher feedback, student discourse, second language writing

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