International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2023, Vol. 18(1) 8-30

The Distribution of Interactional Space and Collaboration in EFL Task-Based Peer Interactions

Kadriye Aksoy-Pekacar

pp. 8 - 30   |  DOI:   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2103-06-0001.R1

Published online: March 08, 2023  |   Number of Views: 145  |  Number of Download: 171


This paper focuses on the influence of task types, namely divergent and convergent tasks, on the interactional space of learners and the amount of collaboration in EFL adult learners’ interactions naturally emerging from performing each type of task. To define interactional space, behavioural engagement measurement was adopted, and the total number of turns and words were quantified to define the distribution of learner talk in each task. Additionally, the categories of collaborative behaviours were quantified for both task types to illustrate their distribution in the tasks. The data of this study involve eleven hours of learner interactions collected from an EFL context where the learners voluntarily participated in a speaking club and completed eight tasks. The interactions were audio-recorded and used for the analysis of the influence of task types on learners’ L2 production and the distribution of collaboration in each task. The results yield a difference in the amount of L2 production between tasks; for example, convergent tasks facilitate more L2 turns and more L2 words than divergent tasks although the mean length of utterance is higher in divergent tasks. Similarly, the distribution of collaborative behaviours is mostly higher in convergent tasks. The results are discussed in relation to both interactionist and sociocultural theories of L2 learning and some implications are also provided based on the results.

Keywords: Convergent and divergent tasks, peer interaction, collaboration, task engagement

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Aksoy-Pekacar, K. (2023). The Distribution of Interactional Space and Collaboration in EFL Task-Based Peer Interactions . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 18(1), 8-30. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2023.525.1

Aksoy-Pekacar, K. (2023). The Distribution of Interactional Space and Collaboration in EFL Task-Based Peer Interactions . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 18(1), pp. 8-30.

Chicago 16th edition
Aksoy-Pekacar, Kadriye (2023). "The Distribution of Interactional Space and Collaboration in EFL Task-Based Peer Interactions ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 18 (1):8-30. doi:10.29329/epasr.2023.525.1.

  1. Aksoy, K. (2018). An investigation into collaborative behaviours in task-based foreign language peer interactions [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Hacettepe University.  [Google Scholar]
  2. Alegría de la Colina, A., & García Mayo, M.P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 91-116). Multilingual Matters. [Google Scholar]
  3. Altay, M. (2004). An investigation into the effects of task-based and topic-based activities on the participation of advanced learners of English in speaking lessons [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University.  [Google Scholar]
  4. Antón, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(3), 314-342.  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  5. Aslan, A. (2015). An experimental study into the effects of structured group work on students’ collaborative behaviours and group performances [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Hacettepe University.  [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, H. D. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching (6th ed.). Pearson Longman. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bygate, M., & Samuda, V. (2009). Creating pressure in task pedagogy: The joint roles of field, purpose, and engagement within the interaction approach. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honour of Susan M. Gass (pp. 90–116). Taylor and Francis/Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cohen, E. (1994). Designing groupwork (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (2014). Designing groupwork strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (3rd Ed.). Teachers College Press.  [Google Scholar]
  10. Dao, P. (2021). Effects of task goal orientation on learner engagement in task performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 59(3), 315-334. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  11. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp.33-56). Ablex.  [Google Scholar]
  12. Donato, R. (2004). Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 284–302.  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Creating a motivating classroom environment. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp.719-731). Springer.  [Google Scholar]
  14. Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 275-300. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  15. Dörnyei, Z., & Malderez, A. (1997). Group dynamics and foreign language teaching. System, 25(1), 65–81. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  16. Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task. In R.R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 147-181). Mk. Newbury House.  [Google Scholar]
  18. Edstrom, A. (2015). Triads in the L2 classroom: Interaction patterns and engagement during a collaborative task. System, 52, 26–37. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  19. Ellis, R. (2003). Task based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.   [Google Scholar]
  20. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.  [Google Scholar]
  21. Ellis, R. (2018). Reflections on task-based language teaching. Multilingual Matters.  [Google Scholar]
  22. Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford University Press.  [Google Scholar]
  23. Erten, İ. H., & Altay, M. (2009). The effects of task-based group activities on students' collaborative behaviours in EFL speaking classes. Journal of Theory & Practice in Education (JTPE), 5(1), 33-52.  [Google Scholar]
  24. Foster, P., & Ohta, A. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 402–430.  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  25. Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 323-51.  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  26. Fujii, A., Ziegler, N. & Mackey, A. (2016). Peer interaction and metacognitive instruction in the EFL classroom. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 63-90). John Benjamins.  [Google Scholar]
  27. García Mayo, M. P., & Azkarai, A. (2016). Does task modality impact on language-related episodes? In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 63-90). John Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  28. Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task‐based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55(4), 575-611.  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  29. Gillies, R. (2003). Structuring cooperative group work in classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 35–49.  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  30. Gillies, R. (2004). The effects of communication training on teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 257–279.  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  31. Gillies, R. M. (2006). Teachers’ and students’ verbal behaviours during cooperative and small-group learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 271-287. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  32. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an Introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.) Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13-23). John Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  33. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  34. Kormos, J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2004). The interaction of linguistics and motivational variables in second language task performance. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 9(2), 1-21. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lambert, C. & Zhang, G. (2019). Engagement in the use of English and Chinese as foreign languages: The role of learner-generated content in instructional task design. The Modern Language Journal, 103 (2), 391-411. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  36. Lambert, C., Philp, J. & Nakamura, S. (2017). Learner-generated content and engagement in second language task performance. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 665-680. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  37. Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55–81.  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  38. Li, E.C., Williams, S. E. & Volpe, A. D. (1995). The effects of topic and listener familiarity on discourse variables in procedural and narrative discourse tasks. Journal of Communication Disorders, 28(1), 39–55.  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  39. Long, M. H. (1990). Task, group and task-group interactions. In S. Anivan, (ed.), Language teaching methodology for the nineties (pp. 31-50).  Regional English Language Centre/Singapore University Press.   [Google Scholar]
  40. Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2019). Second language learning theories (4th ed.). Routledge.  [Google Scholar]
  41. Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  42. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.  [Google Scholar]
  43. Philp, J. & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, [Google Scholar]
  44. 50-72. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  45. Philp, J. & Adams, R. & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  46. Phung, L. (2017). Task preference, affective response, and engagement in L2 use in a US university context. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 751-766. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  47. Pica, R., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language research and instruction. In. S. Gass & G. Crookes (Eds.), Task-based learning in a second language (pp. 171–192). Multilingual Matters. [Google Scholar]
  48. Qiu, X. & Cheng, H. (2021). The effects of task types on L2 oral production and learner engagement. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  49. Qiu, X. & Lo, Y. Y. (2017). Content familiarity, task repetition and Chinese EFL learners’ engagement in second language use. Language Teaching Research, 21, 681–698. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  50. Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford University Press.  [Google Scholar]
  51. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  52. Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (Eds.) (2016). Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda. John Benjamins.  [Google Scholar]
  53. Sato, M., & Viveros, P. (2016). Interaction or collaboration? The proficiency effect on group work in the foreign language classroom. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 91–112). John Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  54. Storch, N. (2001). Comparing ESL learners' attention to grammar on three different classroom tasks. RELC Journal, 32(2), 104-124. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  55. Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  56. Svalberg, A.M.L. (2009). Engagement with [Google Scholar]
  57. language: Interrogating a construct. Language Awareness, 18(3-4), 242-258. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  58. Svalberg, A.M.L. (2018). Researching language engagement: [Google Scholar]
  59. Current trends and future directions. Language Awareness, 27(1-2), 21-39. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  60. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  61. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99–118). Longman.  [Google Scholar]
  62. Tan Bee, T. (2003). Creativity, diversity and originality of ideas in divergent group discussion tasks: The role of repetition and addition in discovering 'new significant', or 'original' ideas and knowledge. Language and Education, 17(4), 241-265. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  63. Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. [Google Scholar]