Metatalk in a Pair Work Activity: Level of Engagement and Implications for Language Development

Abstract

This classroom-based study investigated the metatalk of learners working in pairs on a text reconstruction task. Specifically, the study investigated the learners' level of engagement with linguistic choices, and whether the level of engagement affected subsequent language development. Data were collected over a 2-week period. In the first week, students completed one version of a text reconstruction task in pairs and all pair talk was audio recorded. In the second week, students completed another version of the task individually. Analysis of the pair talk data showed that pairs attended to a range of grammatical and lexical items, but that the nature of their engagement ranged from elaborate to limited. Elaborate engagement was operationalised as instances where learners deliberated and discussed language items and limited engagement where one learner made a suggestion and the other repeated, acknowledged or did not respond to the suggestion. Analysis of learner performance on a set of items that were common to the two versions of the text reconstruction task suggests that elaborate engagement was more facilitative of learning/consolidation for both members of the dyad than limited engagement. The findings also suggest that repetitions, common in language classes, need further investigation.

Keywords:

• language development
• learner–learner interaction
• metatalk
• repetitions
• text reconstruction

Notes

∗ = Limited level of engagment.

1. Both versions of the task were marked and returned to the students at the end of the study.

2. Pair talk was transcribed verbatim. Three dots represent short pauses. Line numbers given here correspond to line numbers in the full transcript. Names used throughout this manuscript are pseudonyms.

3. Although there was no explicit instruction about use of dictionaries or class notes, the researcher observed that students did not consult their dictionaries or their notes when completing the tasks either in pairs or individually.

4. One way perhaps of ascertaining whether the learner did note the suggestion made and the function of the phatic would have been to use retrospective stimulated recall (see Gass & Mackey, 2000).

5. Only in a small number of cases the learning/consolidating was of incorrect grammatical knowledge; in seven cases in elaborate engagement, and three in limited engagement.