Session 2A

Although adult and child differences have been a central issue in Second Language Acquisition (SLA), relatively little is known about the relationship between age and interaction (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Azpilicueta-Martínez, 2019; Oliver, 2009). The interactionist framework (Mackey & Gass, 2015; Long, 1996) has demonstrated that conversations among learners, especially when they generate negotiation of meaning (NoM), facilitate learning (Mackey, Abbuhl & Gass, 2012). Researchers have also shown that, while both adults and children are able to negotiate, children negotiate less, use NoM strategies at different rates and produce fewer moves to check comprehension (Oliver, 2002; Mackey & Gass, 2015). All of which suggests that the benefits of NoM might be weaker in the case of children. Yet, these claims have been made by comparing children and adults belonging to different studies and, therefore, these results need to be tested by studies comparing both age groups under similar conditions (Loewen & Sato, 2018). In order to fill this research gap, the present study examines data from 14 adults and 20 children, with Spanish as their L1, learning EFL at the same proficiency level (A1), and resolving the same task (a story-telling task) with a (level and age) matched peer. Following previous research (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2017; Oliver, 2002), the learners’ use of NoM strategies was coded considering the main types, i.e., conversational adjustments, repetitions and acknowledgements; and their communicative functions, which include preventing and repairing breakdowns and confirming communication. Results show that adult and children pairs display broad similarities: both groups deploy a similar amount of conversational adjustments and acknowledements and both groups use NoM mostly to prevent misunderstandings before they take place. On the other hand, our results confirm that children and adults differ as to which strategies they favour in the communicative act, with the former favouring self-repetition and ackwnowledgements while adults seem to -comparatively- opt for other-repetitions and confirmation checks. In light of these results some previous claims are refined. References: Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. & R. Azpilicueta-Martínez. 2019. Spotting the differences between childchild and child-adult interactions: Evidence from Spanish EFL learners at low levels of proficiency. In J. Rokita & M. Ellis (eds.), Early instructed second language acquisition: Psycholinguistic and sociocultural aspects, 80–105. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. & M. A. Hidalgo. 2017. Benefits and limitations of conversational interactions among young learners of English in a CLIL context. In M. P. García-Mayo (ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary schools: Research insights, 86–102. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Loewen, S. & M. Sato. 2018. Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching 51(3). 285–329. doi: 10.1017/S0261444818000125. Long, M. H. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of research on language acquisition, 413–468. New York: Academic Press. Mackey, A. & S. M. Gass. 2015. Second language research: Methodology and design. New York: Routledge. Mackey, A., R. Abbuhl & S. M. Gass. 2012. Interactionist approaches. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, 7–23. New York: Routledge. Oliver, R. 2002. The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. The Modern Language Journal 86(1). 97–111. doi: 10.1111/1540-4781.00138. Oliver, R. 2009. How young is too young? Investigating negotiation of meaning and feedback in children aged five to seven years. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction. Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass, 135–156. New York: Routledge.

Usage-based theories of language learning have shown that classroom input is not enough to become proficient in a language. For this, formal teaching must be supplemented with informal language learning in everyday settings (Ellis, 2002). Previous research has shown that contextual language learning through out-of-school exposure can lead to large language gains, even before the start of formal classroom instruction (De Wilde, Brysbaert & Eyckmans, 2020; Puimège & Peters, 2019). Apart from out-of-school exposure to the L2, other individual differences are at play when learning a language, such as length of instruction and cognitive variables (Paradis, 2011; Unsworth, Persson, Prins & De Bot, 2015). In this longitudinal study, we aim to investigate how young learners’ L2 English receptive vocabulary knowledge and speaking skills evolve after the introduction of formal classroom instruction and which internal and external individual differences contribute to the development of language proficiency. The individual differences considered in this study are out-of-school exposure, length of instruction, L1 vocabulary knowledge, analytic reasoning ability, working memory and prior L2 knowledge. We looked into Flemish young learners’ L2 English development. The first data collection took place before the start of L2 English lessons when the children (n = 111) were 11 years old. The second data collection took place two years later, after one or two years of formal classroom instruction (depending on the school learning programme). English receptive vocabulary size was measured with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 4 (Dunn & Dunn, 2007), speaking skills were tested with the Cambridge English Test for Young Learners: Flyers (Cambridge English Language Assessment, 2014). Dutch vocabulary knowledge, analytic reasoning ability and working memory were tested with subtests from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children V, Dutch version (Wechsler, 2017). Information about the children’s out-of-school exposure and length of instruction was gathered by means of a questionnaire. Results show a considerable improvement of the children’s receptive vocabulary knowledge and speaking skills after two years. Even though certain types of exposure, length of instruction and Dutch vocabulary knowledge seem to play a role in children’s L2 learning, the main predictor of L2 English proficiency at time 2 was the children’s prior L2 knowledge. This finding shows that contextual language learning plays a prominent role in English L2 learning in a country where English is omnipresent and has a high status. References - Cambridge English Language Assessment. (2014). Cambridge English: Young Learners: Flyers. http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams/young-learners-english/ (retrieved September 5, 2017). - De Wilde, V., Brysbaert, M., & Eyckmans, J. (2020). Learning English through out-of-school exposure. Which levels of language proficiency are attained and which types of input are important? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(1), 171-185. - Dunn, L., & Dunn, L. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (4th ed). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. - Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(02), 143–188. - Paradis, J. (2011). Individual differences in child English second language acquisition: Comparing child-internal and child-external factors. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(3), 213–237. - Puimège, E., & Peters, E. (2019). Learners’ English Vocabulary Knowledge Prior to Formal Instruction: The Role of Learner-Related and Word-Related Variables: Vocabulary Knowledge Prior to Formal Instruction. Language Learning, 69(4), 943-977. - Unsworth, S., Persson, L., Prins, T., & De Bot, K. (2015). An investigation of factors affecting early foreign language learning in the Netherlands. Applied Linguistics, 36(5), 527–548. - Wechsler, D. (2017). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Nederlandstalige bewerking. (Fifth edition). Amsterdam: Pearson Clinical.

Within the “writing-to-learn” strand of SLA research (Manchón, 2011), it is argued that learners need to receive written corrective feedback on the accuracy of their written texts in order to foster L2 development (Ferris, 2010). In recent years, process-oriented WCF studies with adult learners have provided insights into how the allocation of attentional processes (noticing, hypothesis-testing, metalinguistic reasoning) during WCF processing can determine learning outcomes (Wigglesworth & Storch, 2012). Studies with young FL learners in classroom settings have also shown that children incorporate linguistic features noticed from models into their revisions (Coyle, Cánovas Guirao & Roca de Larios, 2018). However, the cognitive mechanisms children use to process WCF have not yet been identified, nor has the influence of the instructional context on WCF processing been considered in research to date. Given the increasing implementation of content-based language teaching (CLIL) in schools across Europe, the present study attempted to identify the WCF processing strategies reported by two sets of young learners in different instructional settings: a conventional EFL classroom and a CLIL classroom in which Science was taught in the FL. Eight pairs aged between 10 and 12 years old participated in a multi-stage writing task during which they compared their written drafts to two model texts before rewriting their original output. The children’s collaborative dialogue protocols, written notes and narrative texts were examined for evidence of noticing and uptake. Following Izumi (2013), noticing was operationalized as the identification of a mismatch between the model and the original text, either verbally stated or in handwritten notes, while strategies were identified following Han and Hyland’s (2015:43) definition of cognitive operations as ‘strategies and skills that the learner uses to process and respond to WCF’. The results revealed quantitative and qualitative differences in the cognitive strategies employed by the pairs in both settings, and in their uptake from the model, suggesting the need to consider contextual variables in future studies of WCF.

The positive effects of collaboration (Mackey & Gass, 2006), on the one hand, and task repetition (TR) (Samuda & Bygate, 2008), on the other, have been widely demonstrated in the field of SLA. However, little is known about the potential of combining these two constructs (Lázaro-Ibarrola & Hidalgo, 2017) and even less if we combine them in the case of writing tasks (Abrams & Byrd, 2017; Storch, 2011, 2016). Moreover, most research has elicited data from adults while young learners still constitute an under-researched population (Collins & Muñoz, 2016). With these research gaps in mind, the present study examines the compositions of 10 pairs of learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) (age 12) who write the same text in response to the same picture prompt three times over a three-week period. Our analysis includes the language-related episodes (LREs) that learners generate while writing collaboratively (Swain & Lapkin, 1998) and, also, a thorough examination of the three drafts that students produce, including quantitative (complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF)) and holistic measures (Housen, Kuiken & Vedder, 2012; Michel, 2017). Results show that learners’ compositions significantly improve with repetition when measured by holistic ratings, however, CAF measures fail to grasp this improvement. As for the LREs, a great amount was found, most of the episodes were focused on form, most were successfully resolved and their amount declined with TR. In light of these results we argue in favor of the inclusion of holistic measures when analyzing students’ productions and discuss the positive effects of collaborative writing in the context of TR with young learners. References: Abrams, Z., & Byrd, D. R. (2017). The effects of meaning-focused pre-tasks on beginning-level L2 writing in German: An exploratory study. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 434–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815627383 Collins, L., & Muñoz, C. (2016). The Foreign Language Classroom: Current Perspectives and Future Considerations. Modern Language Journal, 100(16), 133– 147. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12305. Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (Vol. 32). John Benjamins Publishing. Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. & M. A. Hidalgo. 2017. Procedural repetition in task-based interaction among young EFL learners: Does it make a difference? International Journal of Applied Linguistics 168(2). 183–202. doi: 10.1075/itl.16024.laz. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2006). Pushing the methodological boundaries in interaction research: an introduction to the special issue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060086. Michel, M. (2017) Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency (CAF). In Shawn Loewen & Masatoshi Sato (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition. London: Routledge. Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Storch, N. (2016). Collaborative writing. In R. M. Manchón & P. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing (pp. 387–406). Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31(2011), 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000079 Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, (82), 320–337.