ArchiCAD / Revit a Cypetherm HE Plus

group mode, the initiator was either participant 1 (P1), a label arbitrarily assigned to the first learner to speak in the PE task, or participant 2 (P2), the second learner to speak. In one-to-one mode, the initiator was either the learner (P1) or the teacher (T). I then calculated the absolute difference between each pair of participants in numbers of episodes initiated, in order to obtain a measure of how evenly distributed LRE initiation was between the two participants.

104

4.2.5.1 LRE initiator. Table 14 presents the descriptive statistics for the identity of LRE initiator in group and one-to-one modes.

Table 14

Identity of initiator in group and one-to-one modes (* percentage of total LREs in that mode and task).

LREs %* M

P1 initiates in group (n = 15) Passage Editing 240 59.0% 16.0

Written Composition 97 41.5% 6.5

P2 initiates in group (n = 15) Passage Editing 166 41.0% 11.1

Written Composition 137 58.5% 9.1

Absolute difference between P1 and P2 Passage Editing 74 18.0% 4.9

Written Composition 40 17.0% 2.7

P1 initiates in one-to-one (n = 15) Passage Editing 318 88.6% 21.2

Written Composition 67 39.0% 4.5

Teacher initiates in one-to-one (n = 15) Passage Editing 41 11.4% 2.7

Written Composition 105 61.0% 7.0

Absolute difference between P1 and T Passage Editing 277 77.2% 18.5 Written Composition 38 22.0% 2.5

In PE, a Mann-Whitney U-test revealed that the absolute difference between interlocutors in episodes initiated was significantly greater in one-to-one than in group at the p < .05 level, U(28) = 19, z = 3.86, p = .00012. One-to-one learners initiated 77.2% more PE episodes than their teacher, whereas in learner-learner dyads the difference between P1 and P2 initiation was 18%. In WC, however, the Mann- Whitney U-test revealed no significant difference between group and one to one modes at the p < .05 level, U(28) = 97, z = 0.62, p = .54. In one-to-one, teachers initiated 22% more WC episodes than learners, and in learner-learner dyads, the difference between P1 and P2 was 17%. In PE, therefore, one-to-one learners tended to lead the interaction, whereas in WC, there is was more even balance of student- and teacher-led interaction.

I also compared the number of episodes initiated by learners in the individual mode (i.e. the number of individual LREs in Table 10), with numbers of episodes initiated by P1 and P2 in the group mode (Table 14), in order to compare individual learners with each one of the learners in student-student dyads. The independent samples t-test revealed no significant difference between numbers of episodes initiated by individual learners and episodes initiated either by P1 or P2 in group mode at the p

105

< .05 level in PE, t (43) = 1.19, p = .24, or in WC, t (43) = 0.56, p = .58. Individual learners therefore initiated roughly the same number of LREs as each group learner, the difference being that in groups the additive factor of more participants meant significantly more LREs in total.

4.2.5.2 LRE resolver. I identified whether each LRE was resolved by P1, P2, T, both P1 and P2/T collaboratively, or by no-one (i.e. left unresolved). The resolver was identified as P1, P2 or T if only one of the interlocutors provided the LRE resolution, and the other participant either did not contribute or only contributed by agreeing with the resolver. The resolution was identified as collaborative if both participants contributed something towards the resolution of the LRE, for example by making suggestions or evaluating the appropriateness of forms. I then calculated the absolute difference between each pair of participants in numbers of episodes resolved by each one, in order to obtain a measure of how evenly distributed LRE resolution was between the two participants. Table 15 presents the descriptive statistics for the identity of the resolver of LREs in group and one-to-one modes.

Table 15

Identity of resolver in group and one-to-one modes (* percentage of total LREs in that mode and task).

LREs %* M

P1 resolves in group (n = 15) Passage Editing 118 29.1 7.9

Written Composition 64 27.4 4.3

P2 resolves in group (n = 15) Passage Editing 93 22.9 6.2

Written Composition 86 36.8 5.7

Absolute difference between P1 and P2 Passage Editing 25 6.2 1.7

Written Composition 22 11.2 1.5

Collaborative resolution in group (n = 15) Passage Editing 127 31.3 8.5

Written Composition 73 31.2 4.9

P1 resolves in one-to-one (n = 15) Passage Editing 199 55.4 13.3

Written Composition 52 30.2 3.5

Teacher resolves in one-to-one (n = 15) Passage Editing 67 18.7 4.5

Written Composition 76 44.2 5.1

Absolute difference between P1 and teacher Passage Editing 132 36.7 8.8

Written Composition 24 14 1.6

Collaborative resolution in one-to-one (n = 15) Passage Editing 91 25.3 6.1

106

In PE, a Mann-Whitney U-test revealed that the absolute difference between the number of episodes resolved by each interlocutor was significantly greater in one- to-one than group at the p < .05 level, U(28) = 52.5, z = 2.47, p = .014. One-to-one learners resolved 36.7% more PE episodes than their teacher, whereas in group mode the difference between learners was 6.2%. In WC, however, a Mann-Whitney U-test revealed no significant difference between group and one-to-one at the p < .05 level, U(28) = 100, z = 0.50, p = .62. In one-to-one dyads teachers resolved 14% more WC episodes than learners, and in learner-learner dyads the difference between learners was 9.4%. As with LRE initiation, one-to-one learners in PE led the resolutions more, whereas in WC resolutions were more even balanced between learners and teachers.

A Mann-Whitney U-test revealed no significant difference between group and one-to-one in the proportion of collaboratively resolved LREs at the p < .05 level in PE, U(28) = 81.5, z = 1.27, p = .20, or in WC, U(28) = 99.5, z = 0.52, p = .60.

4.2.5.3 Same initiator and resolver. I identified episodes that were both initiated and resolved by the same participant, in order to examine the degree to which participants in dyads languaged individually, without input from their interlocutor, rather than collaboratively. I then calculated the absolute difference between each pair of participants in numbers of episodes both initiated and resolved by the same person, in order to obtain a measure of how evenly distributed such individual LRE initiation and resolution was between the two participants. Table 16 provides the descriptive statistics for LREs initiated and resolved by the same participant, in group and one-to-one modes.

107

Table 16

Same initiator and resolver of LREs in group and one-to-one modes (* percentage of total LREs in that mode and task).

LREs %* M

P1 initiates and resolves in group Passage Editing 103 25.4% 6.9 Written Composition 34 14.5% 2.3 P2 initiates and resolves in group Passage Editing 58 14.3% 3.9 Written Composition 58 24.8% 3.9 Absolute difference between P1 and P2 Passage Editing 45 11.0% 3.0

Written Composition 24 10.2% 1.6

P1 initiates and resolves in one-to-one Passage Editing 183 51.0% 12.2 Written Composition 14 8.1% 0.9 Teacher initiates and resolves in one-to-one Passage Editing 14 3.9% 0.9 Written Composition 46 26.7% 3.1 Absolute difference between P1 and T Passage Editing 169 47.1% 11.7

Written Composition 32 18.6% 2.1

In PE, a Mann-Whitney U-test revealed that the absolute difference between participants in the number of episodes both initiated and resolved by the same interlocutor was significantly greater in one-to-one than in group at the p < .05 level, U(28) = 35.5, z = 3.17, p = .00152. In one-to-one, students both initiated and resolved 47.1% more LREs than the teacher, while in group mode the difference between interlocutors was 11%. In WC, however, a Mann-Whitney U-test revealed no significant difference between modes at the p < .05 level, U(28) = 103, z = 0.37, p = .71.