Patterns of Interaction in ESL Pair Work

“Storch (2002) identified four patterns of dyadic interaction based on two scales, mutuality and equality, showing that collaborative and expert–novice interactions were more effective for scaffolding and transferring knowledge than dominant–dominant and dominant–passive dyads.”

“Recent research by Storch (2002; 2004), which in turn, had been inspired by Damon and Phelps (1989) and Donato (1988), describes four distinct modes in which learners relate to each other in dyadic interaction: collaborative; dominant/dominant; dominant/passive; and expert/novice.”

“…the other hand, as some scholars have stated, scaffolding can occur in peer interaction, when learners work in small groups or pairs (Donato, 1994; Storch, 2002, 2005, 2007), which took place in the CP group in this study; however, the teacher scaffolding proved to be more beneficial; this…”

“Many researchers in the field of second language acquisition have emphasized the role of social interactions in language development and have advocated for the use of groups for language learning (Storch, 2002; Swain, 2000).”

“In such activities, students can play the roles of both more and less capable people to help one another complete tasks (Storch, 2002; Kim, 2008).”

“However, learners’ L2 proficiency has been found to affect the interaction pattern between learners (e.g. Storch, 2002; Watanabe, 2008; Watanabe & Swain, 2007).”

“…Mitchell and Myles 2001; Saville-Troike 2006; Weissberg 2006), more competent (Van Lier 2001; Myles et al. 1998), more skilled (Applebee and Langer 1983), more effective (Mercer 2001), more proficient (Breen 2001), more able (Storch 2002), a knower (Nyikos and Hashimoto 1997; Bailey 2006), etc.”

“linguistics has documented the importance of collaborative dialogue, languaging (Swain & Watanabe, 2013), and cooperative relations between peers (Damon&Phelps, 1989; Storch, 2002).”

“Fernández Dobao, 2012; Shehadeh, 2011; Storch, 2002; 2005; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2012).”

“1 Employing this framework, Storch (2002, 2005) linked peer interaction to effective language learning when peers construct a collaborative or an expert/novice relationship (Storch, 2002).”

“older leaners similarly show that learners negotiate meaning, request explanations or repair language (Foster and Ohta 2005; Storch 2002).”

“…produced by 30 pairs in the First Certificate in English (FCE) speaking test, based on dimensions of ‘mutuality’ and ‘equality’ (Damon & Phelps, 1989; Storch, 2002): (1) collaborative, with test-takers working cooperatively (high mutuality) and contributing to talk equally (high equality), (2)…”

“Research also found contradictory results concerning the effects of pair dynamics as Kowal and Swain (1994) argued that pairing learners with homogenous ability was more conducive to learning, while Storch (2002) suggested positive effects of heterogeneous pairings.”

“However, the categorization of these patterns of interaction “is by its very nature imprecise” (Storch, 2002, p. 129) and, not surprisingly, other researchers have provided further categorizations.”

“By measuring degrees of equality and mutuality, I utilised the dyadic interaction model (Storch, 2002) to investigate the interaction patterns in both contexts.”

“For instance, studies by Donato (1994) and Storch (2002) found that L2 learners who worked collectively or collaboratively outperformed those who worked individually or non-collaboratively: they were more likely to pool their knowledge and co-construct resolutions to a variety of language-related…”

“Indeed, there is evidence that, when chatting, students sometimes integrate other students’ errors into their own interlanguage (Beauvois, 1992; Kelm, 1992; Storch, 2002) and that learners tend to pay less attention to accuracy (Beauvois, 1992; Kelm, 1992).”

“Peer feedback is an activity in which students read and evaluate each other ’ s drafts (Storch, 2002), which can be bene fi cial for both the providers and recipients of the feedback (Lundstrom and Baker, 2009; Prior, 2006).”

“The writers’ non-collaborative orientation (Storch, 2002) may have compromised the potential (expert + novice) - novice scaffolding advantages in expanding student pairs’ co-constructed ZPD in the collaborative processing condition over the expert-novice scaffolding formed in the individual written…”

“Meanwhile, high equality refers to the equal distribution of turn or equal contributions and the equal degree of controlling the direction of task whereas low equality refers to the unequal distribution of turn of the degree of controlling the direction of task (Storch, 2002).”

“The relationship for the L1 dyad was collaborative, with high mutuality and equality (Storch, 2002).”

“Knowledge is socially constructed when learners do not simply interact cooperatively, by sharing knowledge cumulatively, but also when they collaborate actively (Mercer, 1996; Storch, 2002).”

“A collaborative pattern led to more language discussion in general (agreeing with Storch 2002, 2017), and many learners in this pattern praised the benefits the CW task afforded.”

“One of the major social dimensions that are related to second language (L2) learning is the relationships between learners and their interactants (Goodnow 1993; van Lier 1998; Storch 2002).”

“This research has also examined the effect that factors such as pairing learners with similar proficiency levels or pair dynamics has on the production of LREs (e.g. García Mayo & Imaz Aguirre, 2019; Mozaffari, 2017; Storch, 2002; Storch & Aldosari, 2013; Watanabe & Swain, 2007).”

“Data were coded according to Storch (2002)’s collaboration patterns coding scheme (Table 1) to trace interactional styles (collaborative pattern, dominant/passive pattern, dominant/dominant, and expert/novice pattern).”

“Pairings in which both students are dominant or in which one student is dominant and the other passive are undesirable (Storch, 2002).”

“One of the results of pairing the students was that the pair classified into an Expert-Novice pattern as it is one of the dyadic patterns written by Storch (2002).”

“Thus, patterns of student’s interaction (Storch, 2002), mediational processes between teachers and students (Donato, 2000), and collaborative dialogue (Swain, 2000) are some of the many topics examined.”

“Amidst the proliferation of research in education focused on collaborative groups, studies have meticulously examined their foundational elements, the virtues of cooperative learning, and the intricate factors that shape its effectiveness (e.g., [15–19]).”

“Several studies suggest that collaborative interactions are the most effective ones (Dobao, 2012; Kim, 2008; Lapkin et al., 2002; McDonough, 2004; Storch, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2019; Storch & Aldosari, 2013; Swain & Lapkin, 1998; Watanabe & Swain, 2007).”

“Scaffolding could occur not only between a more capable peer/expert and a less competent partner/novice (Ohta, 1995) but also between novices through dialogic interaction (Storch, 2002).”

“According to Storch (2002), who investigated patterns of interaction between pairs of L2 learners, this “collaborative and expert/novice pattern” is more conducive to L2 learning.”

“In the same vein, researchers (e.g., Donato, 1988; Storch, 2002; Swain & Lapkin, 1998) have shown that throughout the process of co-authoring a text, lexical aspects as well as discourse is improved along with grammatical accuracy.”

“Storch (2002) identified four different patterns of dyadic interaction.”

“Additionally, social relations reflected through pair/group dynamics (Storch 2002; Storch & Aldosari 2012; Sato & Viveros 2016) and learners’ positioning in interaction (Young & Tedick 2016) affect the quantity and quality of collaborative discussions about language form.”

“It was also confirmed by Storch (2005) that collabo-”

“In fact, shaping and reshaping meaning and language in the interactions occurring in collaborative activities in the prewriting phase can pave the path for better achievement in learners ’ subsequent performance (Lee et al., 2018; Storch, 2002; Swain, 2000).”

“…formed by learners is conducive to language learning in CW. Drawing on two indexes (i.e., equality and mutuality) proposed by Damon and Phelps (1989), Storch (2002) identified four dyadic interaction patterns: collaborative (high equality and high mutuality), expert/novice (low equality and high…”

“Published by Sciedu Press 14 ISSN 1927-6044 E-ISSN 1927-6052 Beyond Rwanda, the seminal studies by Reither and Vipond (1989), Saunders (1989) and Storch (2002) were found to squarely focus on students’ self-directed group writing and the patterns of collaboration, the perspective also shared by the…”

“matched to those of Roskam’s study, which was cited by Storch (2013). It was discovered that the majority of students in the longitudinal research chose to collaborate on writing tasks rather than to work alone.”

“Due to the well proven e ff ect on language learning, CW has often been studied within L2 research (Kessler et al., 2012; Oskoz & Elola, 2011; Razak & Saeed, 2014; Storch 2002, 2005; Zhang, 2019a, 2019b).”

“…(2016) and Li and Zhu (2013), who explored participants’ collaboration approaches, we determined the group collaboration on the premise of two indices by Storch (2002): equality (i.e., the degree of control over the task) and mutuality (i.e., the level of engagement with each other’s contribution).”