PREGUNTAS DE LA ENCUESTA

Unresolved LREs in group, one-to-one and individual modes (* percentage of total LREs in that mode and task)

LREs %* M SD

Unresolved Passage Editing Group (n = 15) 68 16.7% 4.5 3.6 One-to-one (n = 15) 2 0.6% 0.1 0.5

Individual (n = 15) 52 22.1% 3.5 2.5

Written Composition Group (n = 15) 11 4.7% 0.7 0.7 One-to-one (n = 15) 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0

Individual (n = 15) 7 5.4% 0.5 0.9

A logical consequence of the almost perfect correct resolution rate in one-to- one is that a significantly lower proportion of LREs was left unresolved in one-to-one than in group, in both tasks. The highest proportion of unresolved LREs occurred in individual PE, where over a fifth of all episodes were left unresolved. Qualitative analysis of individual PE data revealed occurrences of episodes in which a problem

150

was identified, but no alternative form was suggested, and the LRE therefore went unresolved. This is illustrated in the following extract from Ilroy’s PE think aloud protocol:

Ilroy: like Hi is not formal … and me, and if this was, like… thanks a million, this is not formal… if, and here brilliant, OK this brilliant here we can’t say brilliant is like, this… and then give you a buzz, If I give you a buzz, this buzz is definitely, definitely not formal, so we can’t say this in an e-mail to a university…

A similar tendency was observed in Ida’s response:

Ida: OK, so probably, I wouldn’t start with er “Hi”, if is to a, a, I don’t know, a teacher from a university, I would start probably in a different way, then, I think that “thanks a million” is not, like, the perfect way to say, to thank a teacher from a university

The passage editing written responses from these learners also demonstrated a lack of alternative forms proposed, with the forms mentioned in the protocol either not marked on the paper or simply circled or underlined. While the rubric asked participants to correct the problems they found, and participants saw a video of the task modelled for them, it seems that many individual learners felt it was sufficient to identify an error, and sometimes comment on why the form was inappropriate. In one- to-one and group interaction, conversely, if one participant identified an error without correcting it, there was an interlocutor there who could suggest or elicit a correction, as often occurred in one-to-one dialogue. This suggests that the presence of a interlocutor may not only have a significant positive effect on the number of LREs produced, but may also be beneficial for task procedure in the event that a learner misunderstands the rubric. If the study were repeated, it may be useful for individual learners to also have a written example of a correction to follow.

Group learners also left PE LREs unresolved, but to a lesser extent (17% of total LREs) than individuals (22%). In some cases this was for the same reason as in individuals, that is, errors were identified but no resolution was proposed. However, learner-learner interaction in group mode also contained examples of one participant asking a question about a form, and this being either ignored or not understood by the second participant, who moved the discussion on and left the previous form unresolved. German’s question regarding the capitalization of UK, for example, was

151

ignored by Guillermina, who was focusing on a subsequent structure, looking forward to + in:

German It’s correct, “I’m sure the information”, I’m sorry, “the formation will be brilliant, I’m really looking forward to studying in the UK” UK is here is right? in capital letters, here may I,

Guillermina looking forward

German Here we have the

Guillermina Yeah but to study, erm

German studying,

Just studying, I’m writing

Also worth highlighting are the lower proportions of unresolved episodes in WC than in PE. It seems that the productive nature of the written composition task necessitated a resolution of LREs in order for the writing process to continue, whereas in PE it was possible to move on to the next error even if a previous episode had not been resolved.

To summarise the main findings regarding LRE resolution, a significantly higher proportion of episodes were correctly resolved in one-to-one than in group or individual modes. The learner in one-to-one dyads resolved a higher proportion of LREs than either participant in group dyads, but many of these resolutions were scaffolded by the teacher, who provided specific, contingent support and, in the event that this did not lead to correct resolution, resolved the episode him or herself. Structural differences were identified between one-to-one and group modes in terms of interactional exchanges, with one-to-one interaction characterised by teacher elicitation and feedback, in the form of praise and / or correction. While between a quarter and a third of resolutions in one-to-one and group modes were coded collaborative, the analysis revealed that many learner-learner episodes in group mode were in fact cooperative, that is, the sum of two individual responses rather than a collaborative co-constructed response. While individual learners correctly resolved a similar proportion of episodes to group learners, this proportion was based on a significantly lower number of total LREs, suggesting individual learners may not have verbalised episodes that they knew they would be unable to resolve. Incorrect resolution was uncommon across tasks, suggesting resolutions were within learners’ capabilities in all modes, and unresolved episodes were more common in the

152

individual mode, which suggests it may be useful for individual learners to also have a written example of a correction to follow.

In the following section, differences between modes are discussed in terms of learners’ engagement within LREs.

5.3 Research Question 2: How does Learners’ Engagement in LREs Differ