Perception of Learner Proficiency: Its Impact on the Interaction Between an ESL Learner and Her Higher and Lower Proficiency Partners

Abstract

In this article, we explore one aspect of language awareness that has rarely been explored—awareness (i.e. perception) of the language proficiency of the ‘other learner’ in pair work settings. We examine how Mai, a Japanese ESL learner, perceives her peer's L2 proficiency during pair problem solving, and how her perception of learner proficiency affects the nature of peer assistance. Mai engaged in a three-stage task involving pair writing, pair noticing and individual writing with two learners whose L2 proficiency level is either higher or lower than her own. She also provided stimulated recall and was interviewed after all the tasks were completed. The findings suggest that measured proficiency difference does not necessarily affect the nature of peer assistance. Rather, how each learner perceives each other's proficiency difference, and how they interact with their peer based on the perceived proficiency level may be more significant.

Keywords:

• collaborative dialogue
• interaction
• learner proficiency
• pair work
• perception
• sociocultural theory

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Mai, Chie and Rina for their participation in this study. We are also grateful to Lindsay Brooks for her valuable comments on an earlier draft.

Notes

∗

∗It was impossible to identify the LRE initiator for stage 3. We did not attempt to identify the initiator of the LRE, as it was clear to us that the source of the initiation was the text (i.e. original or reformulated) that each student was looking at respectively, rather than the individual herself.

∗∗Time on task and the number of turns, words and LREs in stage 3 are greatly dependent upon the amount of reformulation that each pair received.

1. Swain (2000) defines collaborative dialogue as ‘dialogue in which speakers are engaged in problem-solving and knowledge-building’.

2. Not all participants were able to spare the time for a full length TOEFL. We selected one of the model tests (Sharpe, 2001) and cut each section to approximately half its original length. Their test scores were calculated using the paper-based TOEFL score conversion chart provided in one of the TOEFL study guides (Murakawa, 1997). Since the test was shortened and the scores were not calculated by an expert, these scores might not be comparable to paper-based TOEFL scores.

3. All the names are pseudonyms.

4. All participants were informed of the upcoming post-test before engaging in the noticing task with their first pair partner.

5. We could not conduct stimulated recall interviews with non-core participants due to time constraints. This is one of the limitations of this study.

6. We also coded LREs for types and outcomes; however, only the frequency of LREs is discussed in this article.

7. This tendency was not observed in the other six pairs (three core-higher and three core-lower) involved in the main study. The six pairs were identified as collaborative (1 pair), expert/novice (3 pairs), expert/passive (1 pair) and dominant/passive (1 pair) patterns of interaction. In the expert/novice, expert/passive and dominant/passive patterns, the more proficient peer in each pair was the expert or dominant. For further explanation, see Watanabe and Swain (2007).

8. The transcription conventions used in this study: [] Words or phrases that were omitted from the speech or clarification of the information unclear to the reader. () Paralinguistic information or speaker's action. “” A speaker is reading a written text. … Short pause, between 0.5–3 seconds.

9. All the interview excerpts were translated from the original language, Japanese.