This document summarizes a study on text comprehension among ESL learners through peer interaction. The study examined patterns of interaction between two groups - a collaborative group that actively contributed ideas, and a dominant-passive group led by one expert. Results showed the collaborative group used more discourse strategies and reading comprehension strategies, and were more likely to resolve issues collectively. Conditions like the teaching approach and task design influenced the interaction patterns. The implications are that teachers should encourage collaborative learning to help students actively construct meaning through sharing resources and perspectives.
This document summarizes a study on text comprehension among ESL learners through peer interaction. The study examined patterns of interaction between two groups - a collaborative group that actively contributed ideas, and a dominant-passive group led by one expert. Results showed the collaborative group used more discourse strategies and reading comprehension strategies, and were more likely to resolve issues collectively. Conditions like the teaching approach and task design influenced the interaction patterns. The implications are that teachers should encourage collaborative learning to help students actively construct meaning through sharing resources and perspectives.
This document summarizes a study on text comprehension among ESL learners through peer interaction. The study examined patterns of interaction between two groups - a collaborative group that actively contributed ideas, and a dominant-passive group led by one expert. Results showed the collaborative group used more discourse strategies and reading comprehension strategies, and were more likely to resolve issues collectively. Conditions like the teaching approach and task design influenced the interaction patterns. The implications are that teachers should encourage collaborative learning to help students actively construct meaning through sharing resources and perspectives.
Meaning During Peer Interaction among ESL Learners
Zaira binti Abu Hassan Shaari, PhD. Statement of the Problem Learner-centred teaching is an approach that is often adopted in the L2 reading classroom but little emphasis is given to the interaction that takes place among learners.
If the keys to learning are exposure to input and meaningful interaction with other learners, there is a need to find out how learners mediate their comprehension of texts in second language context.
Aims of Study To provide a rich in-depth portrait of the talk produced by ESL secondary school learners as they engage in discussions of texts written in English. To understand how learners construct their understanding of the texts and the conditions that contribute to the ways they construct this understanding.
Reading Comprehension A constructive and active process that entails relating new and incoming information to information already stored in memory (Bernhardt, 1991:191)
It is social as much as it is a cognitive process (Hudson, 2007; Almasi, 1996; Fielding and Pearson, 1994; Gambrell and Almasi, 1993; Wallace, 1992). Peer Interaction face-to-face oral communication that occurs between two or more individuals of approximately the same age shaped by the tasks, participants and expected outcomes a platform to validate, broaden, transform interpretation and understanding
Meaning Construction the process in which readers use the texts and their own knowledge of the world, of the topic, and language, to infer, set and discard hypotheses, predict and question in order to come to an understanding of the texts.
manifested in the sequence or cycle of utterance during social interaction.
involves the sharing of individual responses in reaching an agreed-upon meaning.
Conceptual Framework of the Study Sociocultural Theory The Interactive Model Of Reading Reader Response Theory Opportunities for individuals to develop higher mental abilities through collaborative construction Meaning construction through interaction between reader's "schemata" and the incoming information from the text Meaning construction through interaction between reader, the text and contextual factors Peer Interaction Reading Comprehension Research Questions 1) What are the patterns of interaction employed by ESL secondary school learners when they are engaged in discussions of reading texts? 2) How do the ESL secondary school learners construct meaning during their discussions of the texts? 3) What are the conditions contributing to the emerging patterns of interaction to arrive at meaning? Methodology Qualitative approach descriptive, qualitative research, in the naturalistic setting of a classroom. it seeks first to describe and then interpret, to the extent possible, the interactions of groups of students (Charles and Mertler, 2002).
Data generation: Audio-visual recordings Classroom observations Interviews Document reviews
Ensuring Rigour and Trustworthiness Credibility: triangulation, member checks, prolonged engagement and persistent observation, peer review, clarifying researchers bias
Transferability: detailed description Dependability: (Reliability) making known the researchers position, triangulation and audit trail The Subjects 32 Form 4 students diverse backgrounds -some students come from English-speaking families from around KL and some come from the FELDA schemes. students worked together in groups or pairs of their choice. Data Collection Procedures Data were collected over a period of three months beginning in July and ended in September 2003. Data were collected weekly during the specified literature periods for the class During this period, the teacher engaged the students in reading tasks that were based on prescribed short stories for Form Four. Data Analysis Using QSR NVivo (Version 2.0.161d) software, data were analyzed recursively and iteratively, according to the constant comparative method (Bogdan and Biklen, 1992).
Identify recurring themes in the transcriptions Generate codes to represent themes or idea. Compare and contrast to identify categories from common elements or pattern Group categories according to research questions Interpret meanings Findings RQ 1: The Patterns Of Interaction Employed by Learners Collaborative Dominant-Passive Pattern Of Contribution During Group Work Involvement and active contribution
Decision making was characterized by a process of co-construction An expert assumed greater responsibility for the task.
Decisions were made by the expert and often not challenged. Nature of Assistance Expert role is fluid or co- constructed as learners pooled their collective resources to reach decisions (mutual scaffolding).
Assistance given by the expert and generally accepted by the others. Resolutions often not reached when the expert failed to help.
RQ 2: The Construction of Meaning (1) Collaborative Dominant-Passive Discourse Features Use of discourse strategies (60%) . Several requests and correcting language use. Many instances of simultaneous talk. Relatively fewer use of discourse strategies (40%). Little focus on correcting language use. Fewer instances of simultaneous talk. Reading Comprehension Strategies A high frequency of strategies. Use of global strategies (58%).
Lower frequency of strategies. Use of global strategies (42%). Reading aloud is common RQ 2: The Construction of Meaning (2) Collaborative Dominant-Passive Collaborations During Textual Episodes Episodes resolved collaboratively (55%).
Episodes resolved by particular individuals in the group (26%).
Episodes not resolved even with collaborative effort (3%).
Episodes not resolved (16%).
Lengthy deliberations of ideas into something more complex. Episodes resolved collaboratively (28%).
Episodes resolved by particular individuals in the group (16%).
Episodes not resolved even with collaborative effort (24%).
Episodes not resolved (32%).
Ideas deliberated briefly. Some ended abruptly. RQ 3: Conditions Contributing to Differences in Patterns of Interaction
Teacher Factor
Teaching Approach Positive towards negotiation of meaning Provide intervention Exam-oriented (focus on the product of learning) Approach to group work
Task Selection Preparation for exams Taken whole scale from a workbook Many questions called for low level processing.
Issues among learners use of discourse strategies and global reading comprehension strategies yet lack of collaborative agreement fear of straying from text lack of confidence the process of learning vs. the product of learning Conclusions Reader-reader discussion fosters engagement in reading and serves as a platform to make known and share problems in comprehension. Readers share resources and employ various strategies. However, they need to work collaboratively to arrive at better or new understanding. Focus on the product of learning leads learners to view group discussion as opportunities to obtain answers to complete tasks. Teacher and learner factors contribute to the nature of interaction. Pedagogical Implications Why do we use group work in the reading classroom? to provide practice in reading? to demonstrate understanding via certain production? to assist learners to extend their capacity to collaboratively construct meaning? as learners construct meaning, they become actively involved in making sense of the texts, thus, making them more active readers
Pedagogical Implications 2
Does collaborative interaction among learners come naturally? expose learners to learning during collective scaffoldings strategy training - expose learners to strategy use and questioning to challenge a reason, ask for clarification, offer a counterargument, or request evidence to support a position. build confidence
Pedagogical Implications 3 How can we encourage interaction among peers to create and support a collaborative learning environment? Task design focus on different levels of comprehension and explore multiple perspectives. structure contexts that support learners meaningful engagement and learning. E.g. problem-oriented (Wells, 1992), provide for choice among alternative solutions (Barnes, 1995), concrete manipulation and experimentation (Crook, 1995), explore multiple perspectives on an issue (Waggoner, et al. , 1995) . L1 vs. L2