Chapter Two of this dissertation explored SLA findings about collaborative dialogue in language learning, and the current chapter has reviewed peer response studies in the L2 writing literature. While both bodies of literature suggest that working collaboratively is beneficial for learners, SLA and L2 writing researchers alike have identified gaps in our current knowledge about how students experience collaboration in ecologically valid settings, and about how to measure the learning outcomes associated with this kind of interaction. This dissertation aims to extend our knowledge in both areas.
The fields of SLA and L2 writing have, for the most part, developed separately. SLA researchers have traditionally focused on oral language as central to definitions of interlanguage competence, viewing writing as “a culture-dependent, secondary manifestation of human language” (Ortega, 2012, p. 405). Recently, however, SLA and L2 writing researchers have begun to investigate the role of writing in second language development (e.g. Williams, 2012). A recent special issue of the Journal of Second Language Writing (Ortega, 2012) on relationships between SLA and L2 Writing highlight this emerging line of research.
In particular, the sociocultural theory of language learning (Lantolf, 2011) described in Chapter Two has received growing attention in L2 writing research and classrooms. Based on the work of Vygotsky (1976), sociocultural theory focuses on learners’ development in using language to mediate mental and communicative activity (Lantolf, 2011). Vygotsky’s work demonstrates that when children play/learn with older peers, the older peers provide mediation and modeling for the younger ones. The children achieve “through collaborative mediation what
is unattainable alone” (Lantolf, 2011, p. 29). SLA researchers working within sociocultural theory study learner-learner interactions with the belief that peer interaction mediates joint problem solving and knowledge building (Swain et al, 2002).
SLA interaction researchers have also considered the interface between the social dynamics of pair interactions and language learning. They have found that not all pairs are successful in creating the kind of collaboration that results in learning, and it follows that in addition to collaborative dialogue, the pair dynamics that occur among learners should also be
examined (Watanabe and Swain, 2007). Using Storch’s (2002) patterns of interaction coding
scheme, interaction researchers have considered issues such as the relationship between patterns
of interaction and post-test results (Watanabe and Swain, 2007), the effect of interlocutor
proficiency on patterns of interaction (Kim and McDonough, 2008), and the effect of pre-task
modeling on patterns of interaction (Kim and McDonough, 2011). Overall, these studies have
found that students who adopt a collaborative pattern of interaction are more successful in using
language as a learning tool. The patterns of interaction scheme, which will be used in this study,
allows researchers to describe expert and novice positionality within peer talk, as well as pair dynamics that are more oppositional, and to consider the effect of these on the co-construction of knowledge.
Peer response, which occurs when pairs of students provide feedback to each other about their compositions, is a pedagogical practice where SLA researchers’ focus on pair dynamics in relationship to learning outcomes is particularly relevant. The intent of peer response is for student writers to consider the suggestions of their peers when revising their drafts. Despite its popularity (Ferris, 2003) and the sociocultural theory argument for peer response (Villamil and deGuerrero, 2006), not all peer response is successful. Students may not provide helpful
comments to each other (Leki 1990; Liu, 2002), interact in a collaborative way (Leki, 1990; Nelson and Murphy, 1992, 1994; Liu, 2002), or use their peer’s comments during revision (Connor and Asenagave, 1994; Tang and Tithecott, 1999). Although several studies have suggested that when students adopt a collaborative stance in peer response, they have better revision outcomes (Lockhardt and Ng, 1995; deGuerrero and Villamil, 2000; Hyland, 2008), L2 writing scholars note that this collaboration has been loosely investigated. Ferris (2003), for example, has called for “multi-featured, triangulated projects that simultaneously consider feedback characteristics and outcomes” (p. 85) of peer response.
This study bridges the gap in these two separate but related research areas, L2 writing and SLA. In contrast to the tightly controlled, experimental SLA studies cited above, the current study will describe peer response as it occurs in a writing classroom. Swain (2002), in her review of student interaction in language learning, notes that while it appears from experimental settings that peer feedback is effective for the development of writing skills, these claims need to be
tested in ecologically valid settings (e.g., classrooms). In addition, using patterns of interaction
will describe the social dynamics of peer response in a principled way, as called for by Ferris (2003).
A study like this one builds on the existing research base in both peer-peer interaction literature in SLA, and peer response literature in L2 writing by using multiple data sources (peer response transcripts, first and second drafts of student writing, stimulated recall interviews with participants, and classroom data) to triangulate observations of the connections between the social interaction during peer response and revision outcomes. In addition, it addresses the compelling question of how peer response pairs who remain stable over the course of a semester develop their response practices and their relationship. With the exception of Lundstom and
Baker (2009), peer response studies have not considered this longitudinal variable, although it is common in second language writing classrooms for peer response pairs to meet multiple times over the course of a semester. This study, then, will address the following three research questions:
(1)What are the patterns of interaction among peer response pairs in an L2 writing classroom, and how do students experience them?
(2) Are different patterns of interaction associated with different revision outcomes, and how do students explain their revision choices?
(3) Do these patterns of interaction change over the course of a semester, and how do students experience this shift?