Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T05:31:32.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Group Work in Classroom Second Language Acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Teresa Pica  and
Catherine Doughty
Teresa Pica
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Catherine Doughty
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The shift in language classroom organization from teacher-fronted to student group work has received a growing amount of theoretical and empirical support (cf. Long, 1983; Long, Adams, McLean, and Castanos, 1976; Taylor, 1982). However, this practice is becoming so popular that it is in danger of turning into yet another ESL bandwagon. The following study was conducted, therefore, to evaluate the role of group work in the classroom, specifically in regard to its possible effects on classroom second language acquisition. Comparisons were made of three ESL classrooms during group vs. teacher-fronted classroom interaction on decision-making tasks.

Analysis focused on three broad categories: (1) grammaticality of input, (2) negotiation of input, and (3) individual input/production. Significant differences between the two participation patterns were indicated only in the increased amount of input and production for individual students during group interaction. Task, rather than participation pattern was shown to be a more important variable with regard to parameters (1) and (2). These results suggested that group work has a useful but somewhat restricted role in classroom second language acquisition.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 1985 , pp. 233 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Canale, M. and Swain, M.. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1: 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. and Pica, T.. 1984. Information gap tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? Paper presented at the 18th Annual TESOL Convention, Houston.Google Scholar
Hunt, E. 1970. Syntactic maturity in school children and adults. Monographs for the Society for Research in Child Development 35 (Serial No. 124).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. 1980. Input and interaction in second language acquisition. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Long, M. 1981. Questions in foreigner talk discourse. Language Learning 31; 135–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. 1983. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. In Clarke, M. & Handscombe, J. (eds.), Pacific perspectives on language learning and teaching, pp. 207–25. Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Long, M., Adams, L., McLean, M., and Castanos, F.. 1976. Doing things with words: verbal interaction in lock step and small group classroom situations. In Fanselow, J. & Crymes, R. (eds.), On TESOL 76, pp. 137–53. Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Long, M. and Sato, C.. 1983. Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teacher's questions. In Seliger, H.W. & Long, M. (eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition, pp. 268–86. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Pica, T. and Long, M.. 1982. The classroom linguistic and conversational performance of experienced and inexperienced teachers. Paper presented at the 16th Annual TESOL Conference,Honolulu. To appear in R. Day (ed.), Conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Pica, T. and Doughty, C.. 1984. The role of group work, in classroom second language acquisition. Paper presented at the 18th Annual TESOL Convention, Houston.Google Scholar
Pica, T. 1985. Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In Gass, S. & Madden, C. (eds.), Input and second language acquisition, pp. 115–32. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Pica, T. 1985. Comprehensible input in the ESL classroom: sizing up the situation. Paper presented at the Nineteenth Annual TESOL Convention, New York.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Doughty, C., and Young, R.. 1985. Making input comprehensible: Do conversational modifications help? Paper presented at TESOL Summer Institute, Washington, D.C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plann, S. 1976. The Spanish immersion program: Towards native-like proficiency in a classroom dialect? Unpublished M. A. thesis, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Porter, P. 1983. How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussions. Paper presented at the 17th Annual TESOL Convention, Toronto.Google Scholar
Taylor, B. 1982. In search of real reality. TESOL Quarterly 16; 19–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varonis, E. and Gass, S.. 1985. Non-native/non-native conversations: a model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics 6: 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar