PEER INTERACTION IN SPEAKING TASKS BY EFL COLLEGE STUDENTS IN VIETNAM

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HUE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES VÕ THỊ KHÁNH LINH PEER INTERACTION IN SPEAKING TASKS BY EFL DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THESIS IN THEORY AND

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HUE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

VÕ THỊ KHÁNH LINH

PEER INTERACTION IN SPEAKING TASKS BY EFL

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THESIS IN THEORY AND

METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING

HUE, 2020

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HUE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

VÕ THỊ KHÁNH LINH

PEER INTERACTION IN SPEAKING TASKS BY EFL

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THESIS IN THEORY AND

METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING

CODE: 9 14 01 11

SUPERVISOR:

Assoc Prof LÊ PHẠM HOÀI HƯƠNG, PhD

HUE, 2020

BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO

ĐẠI HỌC HUẾ TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ

i

BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO

ĐẠI HỌC HUẾ TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ

i

DECLARATION

I declare that this thesis is my own work The data in my work is authentic, genuine and correct

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincerest and deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Associate Professor Doctor Le Pham Hoai Huong for her great insights, constructive feedback, precious suggestions, continuous encouragement and long-lasting patience She has put all of her heart and mind to support me, understood my difficulties, sympathised my circumstances and accompanied me to the end of the PhD journey I admire her optimist spirit and attitudes toward scientific work and learn from her how to make balance of life and work It is my honour to be her student and without her invaluable guidance and scholarly advice, I could not complete this PhD journey

I would like to thank the lecturers at Hue University of Foreign Languages for their instructional advice and practical suggestions to different stages of my thesis completion The members of the panels, including Assoc Prof Pham Thi Hong Nhung, Assoc Prof Tran Van Phuoc, Assoc Prof Truong Vien, Dr Ton Nu Nhu Huong, Dr Bao Kham, Dr Truong Bach Le, Dr Pham Hong Anh, Dr Nguyen

Ho Hoang Thuy, Dr Tran Quang Ngoc Thuy and Dr Nguyen Van Huy, have insightfully given me suggestions to enhance the quality of the thesis

I would like to acknowledge those students who agreed to participate in the study I am grateful for their time and efforts to complete the speaking tasks, write learning diaries and join the interviews Without their devotion and willingness to share their work, experiences and thoughts with me, I could not have achieved my academic purposes

I also owe many thanks to my colleagues, Nguyen Hoang Mai Thy, Doan Thi Thu Hien and Tran Thi Phuong Dung for their generous assistance of instructing the students, transcribing the speaking tasks, coding the data and translating the interviews Their ongoing support concerning the study contributed

to my success

I am particularly indebted to my parents, my mother-in-law, my husband and

my three daughters for their understanding, support and compassion throughout the years of study Without the constant support of my parents and my mother-in-law in

iii

taking care of, driving and getting my children to schools and back, I hardly complete my PhD journey My heartfelt gratitude also goes to my husband for his spiritual support and empathy for my hard work and sometimes my irritation when I got stuck with the study I would like to express my special thanks to my three daughters, Khanh Phuong, Khanh Lam and Linh Dan, for becoming more independent of their learning and tolerant of my various times of absence from home The love and encouragement of my family gave me strength and

determination to complete the study

iv

ABSTRACT

Drawing on Sociocultural Theory (SCT) as a theoretical framework, this study investigated peer interaction in EFL context in Vietnam in which thirty English-major students work with their partners to complete two speaking activities:

A decision-making task and a picture difference task The study addresses four questions (1) how EFL students interact in decision-making and picture difference tasks, (2) what interaction patterns emerge from decision-making and picture difference tasks by EFL students, (3) what students perceive to learn from peer interaction in decision-making and picture difference tasks and, (4) what challenges students face in interaction with peers in decision-making and picture difference tasks In order to gather qualitative and quantitative data for analysis, the study uses different research tools, namely transcripts of video recordings of English-major students completing two speaking tasks of decision-making and picture difference, transcripts of semi-structured interviews with individual students after two task completion and learning diaries written by each student after each speaking task

The findings reveal that EFL students interact with their peers in English speaking tasks in three forms of talk, namely cumulative, exploratory and disputational, in line with Mercer‟s (2004) results The study also identified four different patterns of interaction with different levels of equality and mutuality, namely collaborative, expert/novice, dominant/passive and dominant/dominant, similarly to Storch‟s (2001) findings Importantly, the types of talk and interaction patterns are changeable and varied from each speaking task, which means that task types decide the fluidity of the talk types and interaction patterns Moreover, students in the study reflect to learn from their partners and the task implementation

in terms of lexis, structures, pronunciation and intonation with the learning benefits focusing on lexis and structures than pronunciation and intonation Finally, EFL students also deal with some problems concerning their linguistic abilities and

psychological factors during interacting with their peers to complete two tasks

v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS v

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi

LIST OF TABLES xi

LIST OF FIGURES xii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background of the Study 1

1.2 Rationale of the Study 2

1.3 Purpose of the Study 4

1.4 Questions of the Study 4

1.5 Scope of the Study 4

1.6 Significance of the Study 5

1.7 Structure of the Study 6

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1 Sociocultural Theory Perspective of Interaction 7

2.1.1 Sociocultural Theory and Language Learning 7

2.1.2 Interaction and Peer Interaction in Sociocultural Theory 9

2.1.3 Zone of Proximal Development and Peer Interaction 14

2.1.4 Mediation and Peer Interaction 15

2.1.5 Scaffolding and Peer Interaction 18

2.1.6 Communication Tasks for Peer Interaction from Sociocultural Theory 21

2.2 Interaction and Foreign Language Learning 24

vii

2.2.1 Interaction and Peer Interaction in Language Learning 24

2.2.1.1 Interaction 24

2.2.1.2 Importance of Interaction in Language Learning 25

2.2.1.3 Peer Interaction in Language Learning 27

2.2.2 Interaction Patterns 30

2.2.3 Speaking Tasks for Language Learning 33

2.2.3.1 Speaking Tasks 33

2.2.3.2 Factors Influencing Oral Peer Interaction During Task Completion Process 35

2.3 Previous Studies and Gaps in the Literature 38

2.4 Summary 40

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 41

3.1 Research Approach and Research Design 41

3.2 Research Setting and Sample 42

3.2.1 Research Setting 42

3.2.2 Participants 42

3.2.3 The Researcher’s Role 44

3.2.4 Tasks 44

3.2.4.1 Decision-making Task 46

3.2.4.2 Picture Difference Task 47

3.3 Data Collection Methods 47

3.3.1 Research Triangulation 47

3.3.2 Instruments of Data Collection 48

3.3.2.1 Video-Recordings 48

3.3.2.2 Interviews 49

viii

3.3.2.3 Learning Diaries 50

3.4 Data Collection Procedures 51

3.5 Pilot Study 52

3.6 Data Analysis 53

3.6.1 Sociocultural Discourse Analysis 55

3.6.2 Interaction Patterns 60

3 7 Summary of the Research Methods 67

3.8 Ethical Considerations 68

3.9 Research Validity and Reliability 69

3.10 Summary 70

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 71

4.1 EFL Students‟ Interaction in Speaking Tasks 71

4.1.1 The Types of Talk 71

4.1.1.1 Cumulative Talk 73

4.1.1.2 Exploratory Talk 74

4.1.1.3 Disputational Talk 75

4.1.1.4 The Fluidity of Talk Types 76

4.1.2 Interaction Features in Peer Interaction through Speaking Tasks 77

4.1.2.1 Scaffolding in Peer Interaction through Speaking Tasks 77

4.1.2.2 Mediation in Peer Interaction through Speaking Tasks 82

4.1.3 Discussion 88

4.2 EFL Students‟ Interaction Patterns in Speaking Tasks 92

4.2.1 Interaction Patterns 92

4.2.1.1 Collaborative Pattern 94

4.2.1.2 Expert/Novice Pattern 97

ix

4.2.1.3 Dominant/Passive Pattern 98

4.2.1.4 Dominant/Dominant Pattern 100

4.2.2 The Fluidity of Interaction Patterns and Changeable Roles of Peers 101

4.2.3 Discussion 106

4.3 EFL Students‟ Learning in Speaking Tasks 109

4.3.1 Reported Language Learning in Peer Interaction 109

4.3.1.1 Reported Knowledge Co-construction 109

4.3.1.2 Reported Language Use 112

4.3.1.3 Reported Skills and Strategies Use 114

4.3.2 Discussion 118

4.4 EFL Students‟ Challenges in Peer Interaction in Speaking Tasks 120

4.4.1 Challenges in Peer Interaction 120

4.4.1.1 Linguistic Difficulties 120

4.4.1.2 Negative Psychological Factors 124

4.4.2 Discussion 127

4.5 Summary 129

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION 130

5.1 Key Findings and Conclusion 130

5.2 Contributions of the Study 133

5.3 Implication 135

5.4 Limitations of the Study 137

5.5 Suggestions for Future Studies 138

LIST OF AUTHOR‟S WORKS 139

REFERENCES 140

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STUDIES 152

x

APPENDIX B: SCORES OF PARTICIPANTS‟ SPEAKING SKILLS AND

THEIR SPEAKING COMPETENCE BEFORE THE STUDY 163

APPENDIX C: DECISION-MAKING TASK 166

APPENDIX D: PICTURE DIFFERENCE TASK 167

APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 168

APPENDIX F: LEARNING DIARY 169

APPENDIX G: CONSENT FORM FOR PARTICIPANTS 172

APPENDIX H: TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS 173

APPENDIX I: EXCERPTS FROM TRANSCRIPTIONS 174

APPENDIX J: INTERVIEW AND LEARNING DIARY CODING 189

APPENDIX K: LIST OF LINGUISTIC FEATURES LEARNT BY STUDENTS 193

APPENDIX L: SAMPLE ANALYSIS OF MERCER‟S TYPOLOGY BASED ON SCAFFOLDING TECHNIQUES 200

APPENDIX M: SAMPLE TRANSCRIPT OF PAIR INTERACTION IN EACH SPEAKING TASK 211

APPENDIX N: SAMPLE TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW AND CODING OF THE INTERVIEW 219

APPENDIX O: SAMPLE OF STUDENT LEARNING DIARY AND CODING OF THE LEARNING DIARY 222

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Classification of Types of Talk 55

Table 3.2 Category of Scaffolding Means 58

Table 3.3 Functions of L1 59

Table 3.4 Patterns of Interaction with Indicators of Mutuality and Equality 61

Table 3.5 Categories of Initiation-Response-Feedback 64

Table 3.6 Summary of the Research Methods 67

Table 4.1 Types of Talk across Two Tasks 71

Table 4.2 Scaffolding Techniques used in Decision-making Task 77

Table 4.3 Scaffolding Techniques used in Picture Difference Task 79

Table 4.4 The Functions of L1 across Two Tasks 83

Table 4.5 Patterns of Interaction across Two Tasks 92

Table 4.6 I-R-F used in Decision-making Task 102

Table 4.7 I-R-F used in Picture Difference Task 103

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Patterns of interaction (Storch, 2001, p.113) 30

Figure 4.1 Comparison of Talk Types across Two Speaking Tasks 72

Figure 4.2 Comparison of L1 Functions across Two Tasks 85

Figure 4.3 Comparison of Total Turns across Two Tasks 87

Figure 4.4 Comparison of Interaction Patterns across Two Speaking Tasks 93

Figure 4.5 Reported Knowledge Co-construction 110

Figure 4.6 Reported Language Use 113

Figure 4.7 Reported Language Skills Use 115

Figure 4.8 Reported Linguistic Difficulties 120

1.1 Background of the Study

Nowadays, the role of interaction especially PI is prioritised in language setting because it provides context for language learning in which learners experiment with language, receive feedback, modify their language (Philp, Adams,

& Iwashita, 2014), and co-construct language knowledge (De Guerrero & Villamil, 2000; Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 1998) In essence, language learners construct their knowledge and develop their target language (TL) through interaction with others in the learning environment Thus, a large body of current interaction-based research has been conducted in language classroom settings with participants of adult learners in PI (Nguyễn Thu Hiền, 2017) The literature of PI, then, has been widened with the claim of promoting L2 learning on different aspects

of target language features and skills (e.g., grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and writing skill) In addition, research has examined the collaborative nature of PI, which promotes language learning (Donato, 1994; Storch, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 1998)

However, while various interaction-based studies assert the advantages of PI

in different aspects of language learning and teaching, there is a scarcity of research

on interaction patterns, its influence and its association with language development

in various EFL settings, specifically in speaking skill context Therefore, an increasing number of EFL learning studies focusing more on the social nature of learning have been done to investigate PI to answer the questions of how the peers interact, the roles of interactants, the peers‟ proficiency, the impacts of PI on

2

language development, the types of interaction patterns more conducive to language learning and even the challenges peers encounter in various language settings

1.2 Rationale of the Study

In the age of globalisation, English has played an important role as an international language and has a crucial position in the teaching and learning in schools in Vietnam The crucial role of mastering a foreign language in the modern society has been underpinned by the government, researchers, managers and teachers in the schools A great amount of language-in-education policies has been promulgated to confirm the role of foreign language including English in the schools and society The National Foreign Language project 2020 was initiated with the aim to renovate the teaching and learning of foreign languages within the national education system This long-term project managed by the MOET aims to develop the English capacity of its workforce and increase their ability to engage in

a globalized world In order to achieve the aim of English competence in secondary and vocational schools, colleges and universities, Vietnamese teachers and researchers have put the emphasis on exploring new approaches to make English language teaching and learning in Vietnam more relevant, efficient, and productive Over the past decades, language teachers and learners in EFL and ESL contexts have witnessed the shift of language methodology from teacher-centeredness to learner-centeredness In this case, PI is considered as an appropriate solution for maximizing learner‟s initiative in language learning With the purposes of enhancing learners‟ initiatives in learning TL, more and more classroom activities are designed so that language learners have opportunities to work with their peers in communicative tasks in Vietnam In fact, English is a foreign language in Vietnam

so most learners‟ oral interactions in English occur within the classrooms only Even though communicative activities are emphasised in language classrooms to create more learning opportunities for EFL learners to interact in English, Vietnamese students still encounter problems in communicating in English effectively This happens to majority of EFL learners, and even with English-major students With more than fourteen-year experience teaching English in a teachers‟

3

training college, I have also noticed the same communicative problems with English-major students Thus, there is a need to understand how students actually use language to communicate in the classrooms in order to support them to make full use of the potential of PI within the classrooms, in order to enhance English language fluency

Regarding peers and relationships of peers, studies on nature of L2 learning through PI can be asymmetrical and symmetrical Investigation into top-down and one-way working with peers is more popular, specifically interaction between teacher and learners (Nguyễn Thu Hiền, 2017) while a comprehensive understanding of how EFL students respond to their peers of similar background is still needed more contribution As such, the unbalancing focus of interaction-based research in Vietnam tertiary level is on the unsymmetrical relationship of peers (e.g

Lê Phạm Hoài Hương, 2007; Phạm Ngọc Thạch, 2015; Trần Thị Thanh Thương &

Lê Phạm Hoài Hương, 2017) Understanding how Vietnamese learners of similar background with similar and different language proficiency actually interact using English when working together in pairs in EFL speaking contexts contributes to the literature of PI and its association with language learning

Moreover, the association between PI and development of specific linguistic features and of language skills is found in varied EFL contexts However, PI in English speaking tasks in Vietnamese tertiary contexts is still under-investigated The questions of PI by EFL college students in Vietnam implementing PI through speaking tasks are left unanswered As a result, in order to improve Vietnamese learners‟ English language learning through oral discussions, a comprehensive study on how learners actually use English to communicate with their peers during classroom activities is needed In particular, it is important to investigate how learners use the English language to conduct discussions, to negotiate meaning and

to display attitudes towards other learners and the task This study aims to gain a better understanding of language use in speaking tasks among Vietnamese EFL college students.

4

1.3 Purpose of the Study

The current study focuses on the practice of PI in the theoretical framework

of SCT The primary purpose of this study is to investigate the way Vietnamese EFL college students interact in English speaking tasks in pairs The study also aims

to explore the interaction patterns that are produced through PI and to clarify the linguistic benefits and the knowledge construction the students might gain from working together The final aim is to identify the challenges these students deal with during completing the peer speaking tasks

1.4 Questions of the Study

a) How do EFL college students interact in decision-making and picture difference tasks?

b) What interaction patterns emerge from decision-making and picture difference tasks done by EFL college students?

c) What do the students perceive to learn from peer interaction in decision-making and picture difference tasks?

d) What challenges do the students face in interaction with peers in making and picture difference tasks?

decision-1.5 Scope of the Study

The study focuses on exploring PI of EFL students in Vietnam when they complete the English speaking tasks It investigates the ways EFL students interact

in different types of talk as well as the language techniques they manipulate to implement the speaking tasks with their partners The study also focuses on looking into the interaction patterns they produce on conducting the English speaking tasks Additionally, the learning benefits they gain from task completion and the challenges they encounter during PI are researched The main focus of the PI process in the study is on verbal interaction due to the advantages and undeniable role of spoken words in communication Non-verbal interaction such as gestures or facial expressions during peer speaking tasks will not be recorded for analysis Moreover, as it is stated in the research objectives, this study neither focuses on the reasons why peers interact in certain patterns but looks for the patterns nor

5

investigates the relationship between interaction patterns and the outcomes This study does not either aim to investigate personalities of the participants as it focuses more the interactions between peers

The study is conducted at a national college of education with the participation of second-year students of English majors mainly from rural and highland areas of the central areas of Vietnam Findings of the study therefore, cannot be generated to other contexts of EFL speaking classes like those in urban universities in Vietnam or in other countries

1.6 Significance of the Study

It is hoped that the study findings are valuable in contributing to understandings of English classroom learning in both theoretical and pedagogical aspects Theoretically, it provides additional literature of SCT‟s view of the social nature of learning and extends the base of sociocultural research on PI to EFL college students in Vietnam Specifically, the findings of the study contributes to knowledge of the way EFL college students interact with their peers in symmetrical relationship of relatively similar language proficiency from SCT perspectives Additionally, evidence of the nature of peer talk and its route of talk type fluidity imply practical principles for peer language learning in Vietnamese tertiary contexts EFL learners and language teachers can utilise this insight as driving inspiration to design and organise learning activities in forms of pair work

In addition to exploring PI drawing on sociocultural theory, the study also investigates patterns of PI with the use of Storch‟s (2001, 2002) typology to understand types of PI, together with the mutuality and equality of Vietnamese adult EFL students on conducting speaking tasks This includes the combination of interaction patterns in different speaking tasks The findings of the study may also inform EFL teachers of different interaction patterns and the changes of the patterns that language learners may manipulate The data of PI processes in the study may provide classroom teachers with practical knowledge of PI to apply in their teaching practices Pedagogically, this study yields insights for language teachers in general

6

and English language teachers in particular in training, especially in speaking tasks,

to make classroom interaction a rich environment conducive to FL/L2 learning

Furthermore, the study seeks the learning benefits and challenges of PI in speaking tasks Practically, the findings of association between these and language outcomes add to the understanding of what peers may gain from working collaboratively and what affective factors may discourage language learning development Consequently, language teachers in Vietnam and in other contexts similar to Vietnam may have great consideration when they implement their teaching activities

The fact that this study is conducted on PI in speaking tasks contributes to the largely neglected knowledge of interaction-based studies on speaking skills In a similar vein, it also contributes by exploring the relationship between task types, specifically consensus tasks and interaction patterns or types of talk The study, therefore, sheds some light on how speaking tasks should be designed for the conduciveness of language learning

As applying two frameworks of SCT and Storch‟s (2002) category in an interaction-based research in tertiary context of speaking classes in Vietnam is still rare, this study may motivate more educational researches using these frameworks

in other contexts to other language skills Finally, this study hopes to shed some light on English education programmes by prioritising language use, interaction and learning in their agenda

1.7 Structure of the Study

The study consists of five main parts, including Chapter 1: Introduction of research rationale, questions, scope and significance; Chapter 2: Literature review

of overviews of the nature of PI and the theoretical background; Chapter 3: Methodology of research approach, instruments, data collection procedures and research methods; Chapter 4: Findings and discussion of answers for four research questions with detailed discussion; Chapter 5: Conclusion and Implication of summary of major findings and conclusions, the study contribution, pedagogical implications study limitations and suggestions for future researches

2.1 Sociocultural Theory Perspective of Interaction

2.1.1 Sociocultural Theory and Language Learning

SCT was derived, in part, from the work of Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1978) and his colleagues SCT explains the cognitive cycles of human beings which originate from the social plane (at interpersonal level) and afterwards are internalised in intrapsychological plane (at intrapersonal level, i.e the mental process) In other words, the theory describes learning and development as being embedded within social events and occurring as a learner uses language to interact with other people, object and events in the collaborative environment Subsequently, at the individual level, learners also use language as the key mediational tool to support the cognitive development inside their minds to construct the knowledge In both social and individual levels, language plays a primary role and thus is regarded as a powerful mediational tool Consequently, SCT maintains the relationship between social interaction and language learning through which the knowledge is co-constructed because the higher mental functions like problem solving, voluntary attention and logical memory are mediated (Lantolf

& Thorne, 2006; Watanabe, 2014) through the people‟s interaction by the use of mediational tools

SCT is meaningful to language learning and development due to its concept that human activities take place in cultural context, are mediated by language and other symbol systems (Lê Phạm Hoài Hương, 2003) In other words, the focus on the importance of language implies that “participation in culturally organized activity is essential for learning to happen” (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p 214) Simply put, learning is socially and culturally mediated by language In describing

Three concepts of SCT, namely “that social interaction informs the development and character of mental processes, that cultural tools mediate psychological functioning, and that development advances through the ZPD” (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p 287), underpin various research on L2/FL learning by providing the prompts of synthesis of these concepts, bringing together the ZPD with social interaction and cultural tools In other words, through the lens of SCT, L2/FL learning and development are intervened by many effective factors in which the use of language (L1 and L2) as a powerful symbolic mediational tool should occur in the ZPD and through social interaction

SCT is considered as a breakthrough from cognitive approach While cognitive approach focuses on the mental processes related to individual language development emphasising individual cognition, cognitive processing, individual performance and abilities measured in numbers, SCT considers cognitive development originates in social interaction SCT underscores learners‟ collaboration in building up the knowledge through the social interaction, the heart

of learning process From SCT perspective, learning is viewed not as “products and states” but as “changes and processes” (Schinke-Llano, 1995, p.22) The “changes

“individual knowledge is socially and dialogically derived” (Donato, 1994, p 51) According to SCT, learning arises not through interaction but in interaction (Ellis, 2000) Learners first succeed in performing a new function with the assistance of another person and then internalize this function so that they can perform it unassisted In this way, social interaction mediates learning (Ellis, 2000) Moreover, Lantolf and Thorne (2006) underscore that PI should be included among learners in classroom contexts where learning takes place Various studies from SCT perspective have shown how PI can scaffold and mediate language development, providing guidance in students‟ ZPD effectively though the use of various interactive strategies or interaction patterns (e.g., Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2001)

Taken as a whole, SCT provides the key concepts for language learning with the emphasis on social interaction in knowledge construction and the principles for learners working together (PI) through the introduction of ZPD, mediation and scaffolding which are intertwined and support one another to form the holistic perspective of learning in general and language learning in particular With the focus on association of PI and language development, SCT is an appropriate framework for the current study

2.1.2 Interaction and Peer Interaction in Sociocultural Theory

The notion of “interaction” and its close connection with foreign language learning have been demonstrated by the early research on NNSs development of L2 knowledge through interaction, especially with the introduction of Interaction Hypothesis by Long (1996) emphasising the role of comprehensible input due to its relation to language learning through interaction Krashen‟s (1985) seminal Input

10

Hypothesis confirmed that comprehensible input is both a necessary and sufficient condition for language acquisition However, these two early interaction hypotheses have come under heavy criticisms due to its exaggerated importance to the assumption that L2 acquisition could occur from mere exposure to the TL (Swain, 1985) The major objections argued that interaction is a dynamic process involving multiple factors simultaneously affecting the learner development such as giving learners the opportunity to produce output and providing them with negative evidence and learners must notice a gap between their own knowledge and the target form (Schmidt & Frota, 1986) Therefore, Schmidt‟s (1990) Noticing Hypothesis and Swain‟s (1995) Output Hypothesis broadened the scope of interactionist approach with the noticing forms, providing feedback and producing output However, those views of interactionist approach drawing on cognitivist paradigm conceptualise interaction as an environmental trigger to internal acquisitional process (van Compernolle, 2015) and limit interaction process in the individual learning per se than putting learners in the social contexts with various aspects of the learning process (Philp et al., 2014)

On the contrary, SCT addresses these concerns of social phenomenon of interaction by providing a much broader and richer account of the role of interaction

in language acquisition (Ellis, 1999) As for the comparison of interaction in language learning between Interaction Hypothesis and SCT‟s perspectives, Ellis (1999, p 21) notes that the Interaction Hypothesis “views interaction as assisting acquisition by helping to meet learners‟ data needs,” whereas SCT “treats interaction as a social practice that shapes and constructs learning” That is to say SCT with its holistic approach views interaction as a whole from social interaction

to the individual development and then the co-construction of knowledge Therefore, interaction in general and PI in particular have been fully perceived by SCT in learning context

SCT highlights the role of PI in the process of learning The results of many studies on PI that have adopted this theoretical paradigm confirm the possibility of language learning through PI (e.g., Kowal & Swain, 1997; Swain, Brooks &

11

Tocalli-Beller, 2002; Watanabe & Swain, 2007) From the SCT perspective, the role

of L2 learning is underscored by the emphasis on language and especially dialogic interaction in learning and development SCT believes children develop their first language based on their interaction with their “peers”, namely their parents and other adults (Vygotsky, 1978) Due to language as being one of semiotic mediational tools of learning, they develop cognitively and also lead to language development through the process of social interaction SCT confirms the role of

“peers” and the interaction with “peers” in learning by seeing learning and development as something which cannot be explained in terms of processes that occur in the brain but in terms of processes that occur in learners‟ interaction with people in his/her environment such as in cooperation with his/her peers (Vygotsky

1978, p 90) In other words, social interaction aids cognitive development and it is

in this interaction that new knowledge occurs Through PI, the learners assist peers, co-construct knowledge, and solve problems together (De Guerrero & Villamil, 2000; Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 1998) Therefore, SCT is a suitable framework to study PI and its role in L2 learning

Peers from SCT perspective have different language proficiency so that during the PI the more capable/knowledgeable peer can scaffold the less capable peer and vice versa in language learning The positive effects of PI have been testified in various L2 learning studies, employing the framework of SCT, in which cognition and knowledge are confirmed to be constructed through social interaction (Lantolf, 2000; Ohta, 2000, 2001) Some of them have shown that both parties, that

is more knowledgeable peer (expert) and less proficient peer (novice), are beneficial during the interaction and that the mutual assistance occurs not only among the pairs of different proficiency but also among learners of similar proficiency (De Guerrero & Villamil, 2000; Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2000, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 1998) However, research findings also indicate that the quality of interaction greatly depends on those involved and the context in which they interact, and that interaction becomes more conducive to language learning if it is conducted in a collaborative manner (Storch, 2001, 2002)

12

The analytical framework inspired from SCT and used in various based studies related to peer talk is SDA Mercer (1996, 2004), on the base of sociocultural perspectives on nature and functions of language, thinking and social interaction, coined SDA to analyse interactions between teacher and students or between students in language classrooms SDA concerns cognition and the social and cultural context of talk with the focus on PI as a form of intellectual activity (a social mode of thinking) SDA incorporates a concern with the lexical content and the cohesive structure of talk, that is not only with the processes of joint cognitive engagement, but also with their developmental and learning outcomes Mercer (1996) classified three types of talk that language learners manipulate during interaction with the other peers, namely disputational talk, exploratory talk and cumulative talk The different types of talk characterise varied features of scaffolding, mediation in learners‟ ZPD

interaction-Although PI provides various opportunities for learners to develop their TL, previous studies on PI have also reported some negative effects of PI (Ohta, 2001; Shima, 2008) In fact, the wrong assumptions likening PI as the common time when language learners sit together to do the same tasks in pairs can lead to negative effects disregarding the mutuality and the scaffolding process Specially, the big gap

in TL proficiency can cause the less proficient peers‟ failure in receiving the constant help from the more proficient peers, and also the inability to keep up with their peers, which can, in turn, become an affective dimension This signifies the peers‟ dissatisfaction of their own participation and the other peers‟ doubts of their contribution to the task completion Therefore, the participants could evaluate the task negatively, devalue the conduciveness of PI to language learning, which then influences the learners‟ reluctance to participate in PI

In essence, peers depend on each other to complete the task due to the collaborative nature of this type of learning That is to say, PI with the characteristics of being less removed in status than the teacher, less distant a model

in terms of competence and closer in age and experience (Philp et al., 2014, p.6) can influence negatively the results of the task completion and then language learning

13

For example, Ohta (2001) stated that learners might pick up incorrect information from their peers Similarly, Rick, the expert in Shima‟s (2008) study, expressed the irritation and insecure and unsure feelings about their learning process in pair work due to the lack of a definite answer to their problems More seriously, this can lead

to the imperfect construction of knowledge during the PI It also means PI does not necessarily provide an opportunity for learning (Kim, 2016; Storch, 2001, 2002)

On the contrary, while documenting the negative aspects of PI as imperfect construction of knowledge (Storch 2001, 2002), interaction-based studies have underlined the necessary role of teachers as experts or more capable peers in specific learning contexts where ineffective peer mediation and unreliable linguistic resources from peers may hinder the development of L2 (Lantolf, 2000; Li, 2009) Teachers are proven to manage the interaction well, model appropriate forms and monitor the learners‟ production in a proper way in specific learning contexts when peers find it difficult to push their ZPD (Li, 2009) That is to say the presence of teachers can help direct the learners‟ attention to language form and task goals during the activity, or to emphasize important form-meaning connections In general, language learning takes place in social interaction where peers have sufficient opportunities to practice their TL collaboratively, scaffold and mediate in two-way processes with teachers or peers Therefore, it needs to understand thoroughly the nature of PI from SCT‟s lens in terms of ZPD, mediation and scaffolding in the relation with PI in L2 setting

The desire to understand how language development occurs through PI triggers the researchers‟ curiosities to implement the studies on developmental processes from a holistic perspective when the processes take place during learner interaction (Ohta, 2000; Swain and Lapkin, 1998) The holistic perspective on developmental questions in SLA has been gained through SCT‟s tenets of language development This theory clarifies the relationship between social interaction and learning which is well known by the ZPD

14

2.1.3 Zone of Proximal Development and Peer Interaction

Vygotsky (1978, p.86) defines ZPD as “The distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance

or in collaboration with more capable peers” The most important idea of ZPD is that human beings can learn things through interacting with the more capable peers

in social environment if the knowledge is within their ability to acquire (their ZPD)

In language learning, it means that the tasks for learners should be negotiable and solvable and also create enough learning possibilities for language learners to develop their TL Within the concept of ZPD, potential development never ceases,

as each stage of development in the spiral process develops from a previous one and also becomes the starting point for another further advanced development (Lantolf

& Thorne, 2006) Moreover, the notion ZPD also suggests the idea of doing together and learning together in environment (zone) to reach the development In this sense, both parties in the PI, even the less proficient learners, must actively engage in the tasks as Wertsch (1991, p 18) puts it: “They (learners) create their surrounding as well as themselves through the actions in which they engage”

According to SCT, language learning occurs through social interaction when the individuals use language to interact with the more proficient peers in learning environment In the sense of ZPD, both parties involved in PI to complete tasks can benefit from providing each other opportunities for learning when they work collaboratively (Kos 2016; Watanabe, 2008) or collectively scaffold each other as in Donato‟s (1994) study and differential competence among peers allows a ZPD to emerge among in pairs (Antón & DiCamilla, 1999) It means that the less proficient learners can learn from the more proficient peers Meanwhile the more proficient peers also get benefits from working with their less proficient peers (van Lier, 1996) From the educational setting, the PI tasks in ZPD should involve interaction between an expert (more capable peer) and a novice (less capable peer) in which the expert eventually transmits ability to the novice through social interaction (Lantolf, 2000) Similarly, Donato (1994) confirms ZPD as collaborative interaction between

15

experts and novices or peers using mediational means to achieve jointly constructed expertise This mutual two-way assistance results in the higher level of performance (Antón & DiCamilla, 1999; Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2000, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 1998; Watanabe, 2008; Watanabe & Swain, 2007) It does not mean that peer in the interaction keeps only one role as expert or novice during the whole process of task completion as peers can simultaneously be experts and novices The expert/novice interaction pattern is proven to be conducive to language learning by many L2 learning researchers (e.g., Ahmadian & Tajabadi, 2017; Kim, 2016; Kos, 2016; Roberson, 2014; Storch, 2001, 2002; Watanabe & Swain, 2007; Zheng, 2012)

2.1.4 Mediation and Peer Interaction

SCT maintains that learning occurs during interaction with the world by the application of a number of principles, one of which is mediation (Lantolf, 2000) Mediation has been defined as the way in which people change aspects of the world around them using “psychological tools” Psychological tools are cultural artifacts, language, signs or symbols which facilitate interaction with the world and enable cognitive change In the case of language learning, mediation can take the form of textbook, visual material, classroom discourse, opportunities for L2 interaction (Lê Phạm Hoài Hương, 2003, p 33) The author also points out that social mediation in the form of interaction can occur as expert/novice mediation or peer mediation Mediation, in general, occurs in the forms of material tools, interaction with another person and the use of symbols (Ellis, 2017)

Wertsch (1991, p 12) claims that “Human action typically employs mediational means such as tools and language and that these mediational means shape the action in essential ways” while Daniels (2015, p 34) implies mediation as

“The process through which the social and the individual mutually shape each other” In other words, mediation can be done through means of communication as language and artifacts, and mediation itself is a process through which human beings gain the awareness and control of the mental ability (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006) In this sense, language is a vital factor in the social interaction by which human beings mediate and are mediated to move to a higher form of mental ability

16

In language learning settings, especially in PI in classrooms, language is used as the most essential tool for language learners to complete the tasks through interacting with each other With the emphasis on language in mediating cognitive processes, Swain (2006, p 98) proposed a term “languaging” to refer to “The process of making meaning and shaping knowledge and experience through language.” It means that languaging becomes a process in which language is used to mediate linguistic problem solutions in language learning From the mediation implications, peers in the pair talks use the language during the languaging and their “saying” becomes a cognitive activity and “what is said” is an outcome of the activity As a result, this mediational process results in new constructed knowledge through collaborative efforts by using language (Swain, 2000) However, excessive or inappropriate mediation may not facilitate language learning in PI, which needs the role of scaffolding, i.e constructive help within ZPDs for positive linguistic results

The Use of First Language (L1) as a Mediational Tool in Peer Interaction

Using L1 in the language learning context has been a controversial subject with much debate due to the conflicts of exclusion or inclusion of L1 in the L2 classrooms between audiolingual approach followers and advocators of L1 Various research claims the necessity of L1 in the target learning process and reveal the results that using L1 in some situations of L2 learning is useful (Wells, 1999) They view L1 as an additional cognitive tool (Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003), a psychological tool for providing scaffolded help as well as creating intersubjectivity when learners face cognitive difficulties (Antón & DiCamilla, 1999) or a mediational tool for regulating behaviour (Antón & DiCamilla, 1999; Swain & Lapkin, 1998) for understanding the tense (Harun, Massari & Behak, 2014)

Regarding the amount of L1 use, students‟ L2 proficiency, task type (Storch

& Aldosari, 2010; Moore, 2013; Swain & Lapkin, 2000; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003), task familiarity, and interlocutor familiarity (Moore, 2013) are listed as the influence factors on L1 use and the amount of L1 use Swain and Lapkin (2000) found roughly 25% of L1 over the turns taken with no significant difference but high variability across dyads while in Moore‟s (2013) study, L1 was used for 28%

17

of PI and two dyads up to 30%-50% in Storch and Wigglesworth‟s (2003) study The lowest rate was documented in Storch and Aldosari‟s (2010) research with only 7% of the word count and 16% of turns conducted in the L1 However, those studies with varied L1 amount claim the benefits of L1 use in PI of L2 learning As such, the variety of L1 amount suggests the different threshold of L1 amount to guarantee language learning in EFL learning contexts

The emergence of L1 use in EFL classrooms is complex, unpredictable and associated with various factors, namely learner perceptions, prior experience of L2 learning, the task rubric, and aspects of the immediate situation, and sometimes out

of their acknowledgement (Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003) Levine (2003) makes a case for using the L1 as the marked code in the classroom to relieve anxiety Learners may be led into interaction in the L1 or L2 based on the initial utterance of

an exchange (Scott & de la Fuente‟s, 2008 as cited in Moore, 2013, p 251) across all categories of talk Finally, where L1 use cannot be accounted for by individual preferences with regard to L1 use, differences in language proficiency, or dialogically negotiated focus of talk, interpersonal factors relating to intersubjectivity, task control, and pedagogic roles, as well as other situational factors may influence the emergence of L1 use (Moore, 2013, p 250)

From SCT perspective, language plays an important role in EFL and ESL learning in variety of aspects in which benefits of L1 use have been confirmed in different classroom contexts as foreign language classrooms (Antón & DiCamilla, 1999; Brooks & Donato 1994) and immersion classrooms (Swain & Lapkin, 2000) due to its role as a mediating tool in all forms of higher mental processing Previous studies adopting SCT as framework have confirmed the L1 use during L-L interaction can be highly beneficial, especially for intermediate and lower proficiency learners dealing with cognitively challenging tasks and content (Antón

& DiCamilla, 1999; Swain & Lapkin, 2000) L1 is used as the mediational tool (Harun, Massari & Behak, 2014) to create the social space for EFL and ESL learning in PI where learners can mutually support to solve the linguistic problems and gain the common knowledge They have demonstrated that the L1 can serve a

18

number of functions, including discussing the prompt and structure of the composition, negotiating their collaboration, drawing attention on grammar and vocabulary (Bao & Du, 2015; de la Colina & Mayo, 2009; Swain & Lapkin, 2000; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003), managing the task (de la Colina & Mayo, 2009) Use of L1 may assist learners “to gain control of the task” (Brooks & Donato, 1994,

p 271) and work with the task at a higher cognitive level than might have been possible had they been working individually (Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003) It is also acknowledged that the amount of L1 use depends on the proficiency level of learners (Bao & Du, 2015) with the higher amount of L1 use by elementary-level learners than that of the intermediate-level learners

2.1.5 Scaffolding and Peer Interaction

Although the term “scaffolding” was not directly mentioned in Vygotsky‟s (1978) work, it is, in fact, included in his paradigm in the notion of ZPD Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976), the first introducers of scaffolding, describe it as a process

of constructive support in form of interaction in ZPD between an expert (more capable peer) and a novice (less capable peer) until the novice can do things independently

Obviously, the concept of scaffolding is a metaphor in learning domain in terms of a learning context, a tutorial process (Wood et al., 1976), a support given

by a more capable peer and even a dynamic intervention finely tuned to the learner‟s ongoing (Van et al., 2010) However, some researchers have controversial conceptualisations of this term with regards to the relationship between expert and novice as well as the learning nature in PI For example, some criticisms of those who use scaffolding in a very traditional way (Daniels, 2016) which means that the experts tend to be in the teachers‟ shoes (e.g., Lê Phạm Hoài Hương, 2007) with higher position in learning context and this one-way and top-down learning might spoil the learning development at least from the side of the expert In this sense of asymmetrical relationship, the expert controls the learning opportunities in the PI and even novice‟s knowledge construction, which entails the low mutuality of responsibility in the interaction (Granott, 2005, as cited in Watanabe, 2014)

19

Scaffolding, then, has strayed too far away from the original theoretical context as a kind of top down support or a directive instructional strategy initiated by teachers (Stone, 1998, as cited in Van et al., 2010, p 296) or peers Furthermore, several researchers have shared the same sensitive concerns about the incomplete comprehension of scaffolding which leads to the misunderstanding of its use (Pea, 2004; Stone, 1998, as cited in Van et al., 2010, p 296) Pea (2004, as cited in Van et al., 2010, p 296) claimed that “the concept of scaffolding has become so broad in its meanings in the field of educational research and the learning sciences that it has become unclear in its significance.” In this sense, scaffolding can hinder the nature and positive effects of PI in language learning

Van Lier (1996) argues that the customary assumption of “scaffolding” as the topdown and one-way assistance within ZPD which can only be from a more capable person is too simplistic A number of studies reveal a common finding that there is cognitive value even in homogeneous pairing; that is to say in such PI there are no identifiable or constant “experts” (Kowal & Swain, 1997) Obviously,

“scaffolding” can occur in collaborative form and accomplishment where scaffolders and scaffoldees can exchange their roles frequently and get mutual benefits from providing “peer scaffolding” or “collective scaffolding” (Donato, 1994) because each learner has their own weaknesses and strengths that may be complementary (Ohta, 2001, p 76) from the other peer in social interaction to complete the tasks “Scaffolding”, then, can be defined as a “collaborative process, through which assistance is provided from person to person such that an interlocutor

is enabled to do something she or he might not have been able to do otherwise” (Ohta, 2000, p 52) Consequently, the study follows the current trends of viewing scaffolding as a fluid process of assistance in language learning meriting both participants in PI

Wells (1999) considers that scaffolding possesses three particular features, namely the dialogic discourse in which knowledge is co-constructed, the activity in which knowing is embedded, and the role of artifacts that mediate knowing In other words, scaffolding requires the interaction between two peers acting as expert and

20

novice alternately and by the use of language, tasks, and other necessary mediational tools They complete the problem-solving and knowledge-building dialogues collaborately for the ultimate independent ability of solving language challenges and better linguistic performance

During the last decades, classifications of scaffolding strategies can be found

in various works such as Wood et al.‟s (1976) six scaffolding functions, Tharp and Gallimore‟s (1988) six means of assisting performance and Van de Pol, Volman & Beishuizen‟s (2010, 2011) three characteristics According to Wood et al (1976, p 98), the process of scaffolding is categorised into six main functions used by the expert (the tutor) to help the novice (the child) accomplish a task Six functions for the experts working with the novice consist of recruitment, reduction in degrees of freedom, direction maintenance, marking of critical features, frustration control and demonstration or modeling solution to a task Tharp and Gallimore (1988) speak of six means of “assisting performance” as modeling, contingency management, feeding back, instructing, questioning, and cognitive structuring

The notion of “peer scaffolding” is mentioned in Donato‟s (1994) study in a university French classroom under the name collective scaffolding In the process of peer scaffolding, language learners can be “at the same time individually novices and collectively experts” (Donato, 1994, p 46) during the PI to expand their L2 knowledge and extend the linguistic development of their peers Peer scaffolding also serves as a mediating tool to promote learners‟ ZPD and it has a valuable role

to play in language learning situations Mercer and Fisher (1993, as cited in Wells,

1999, p 221) propose the following criteria of a scaffolded help, which should a) enable learners to carry out tasks that they themselves would not have been able to manage; b) be intended to bring learners to a state of competence that will enable them eventually to complete tasks on their own; and c) be followed by evidence of learners having achieved some greater level of independent competence as a result

of scaffolding From this light, in order to scaffold effectively to solve the linguistic problems in pair talks, the speaking tasks should be in the learners‟ ZPD so that language development can occur in PI Too much or too little scaffolding from their

21

peers due to the tasks‟ difficulties results in no language development Moreover, the participants in the PI also play an important role in the process of new knowledge construction and later independence of learning Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) further claim that carrying out successful scaffolded help depends on how skillfully the teachers/more-capable peers manage the interaction between tasks and the demands of less-skilled learners In spite of how well the tasks are planned, scaffolding is not successful without the peer interlocutor‟s sensitivity to the partner‟s readiness for help (Ohta, 2000) and the quality and quantity of assistance (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994) In the case of PI in speaking tasks, the peer scaffolding becomes valuable when the peers should wait for each other to finish their utterance, prompting, through co-constructions or recasts (Ohta, 2000)

However, not all the peer scaffolding is much more superior to individual learning in terms of providing opportunities leading to significant learning development (Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009) For example, scaffolding is concluded of having no association with developing writing fluency of EFL learners (Sabet, Tahriri & Pasand, 2013) Similarly, Ferreira (2008) identified three constraints of the less capable peer‟s object-regulation, the more capable peer‟s hindrance to scaffolding and the more capable peer‟s lack of L2 knowledge The explanations of these hindrances came from the students‟ pervasive and frustrating foreign language learning experience in the Brazilian public school and by the lack

of socialization into scaffolding

2.1.6 Communication Tasks for Peer Interaction from Sociocultural Theory

Research on interaction drawing on SCT as a framework has shown that learners support each other during oral production by providing assistance and expressing interest and encouragement (Foster & Ohta, 2005) and produce a complex form which no single member of the group could do individually (Donato, 1994) The tasks used in the research are varied from vocabulary (Ahmadian & Tajabadi, 2017), grammar (Ohta, 2000), reading, writing (Li, 2009; Roberson, 2014; Storch, 2001, 2002; Zheng, 2012) and to speaking (Donato, 1994; Lê Phạm Hoài Hương, 2007), which are classified into two types of oral and written performance

22

of language In other words, the collaborative interaction and scaffolding provide opportunities for learning through the use of language in oral and written performance Thus, the speaking and writing tasks are all in the paradigm of SCT and confined within its tenets

SCT emphasises the role of learners, i.e more knowledgeable peers, the use

of language and other mediational tools, the social interaction and the mutual scaffolding in language learning In correlation to the SCT concept in terms of focusing on the participants and their social interaction through mediational tool as language, PI tasks, then, should be chosen with the concerns of language learners so that “Students act as language users with the explicit analysis of language structures and forms emerging from difficulties experienced during the completion of tasks” (Ogilvie & Dunn 2010, p 162) Pedagogically, chosen tasks must lie within the learners‟ range of capabilities In other words, tasks involving the dialogic interaction of participants with different language capabilities should not only stimulate the peer‟s engagement into completing the pair talks but also be manageable in peers‟ ZPD to solve the linguistic problems

SCT is valuable for understanding nature of learning and development due to its tenets and principles which provide solid foundation for examining how language learners develop in social context through social interaction with surrounding environment, more knowledgeable people and artifacts However, SCT

is also claimed for some limitations which stem from the vagueness of the ZPD‟s definition, unbalanced regard of individual in comparison with the collective in learning process and inaccurate understanding of the theoretical and practical value

of the scaffolding metaphor

ZPD has been criticised for its incomplete description of learners‟ learning ability, style of learning, current ability level, or motivational factors It also does not explain the process of development or how exactly development occurs (Chaiklin, 2003) because ZPD does not provide a specific scale to measure the individual learner‟s zone The fact that language learners differ from the others in terms of developmental pace and cognitive skills has not been discussed profoundly

23

and satisfactorily in ZPD, even with the influence of cognitive and physical development issues on each language learner during the learning process The questions on the fluidity of the learner‟s zone and the state of improvement within their zone which is long-lasting or only temporary still have no precise answers In general, the lack of accurate explanation of ZPD associated with language learning and teaching brings great concerns to the pedagogical researchers

In addition, SCT tends to devalue the role of individuals in language learning with the beliefs that development originates from social context and the mind is not considered separate from the group In other words, social situations become the decisive factors of development and learning in group is the best solution for all language learners Liu and Matthews (2005, p.392) assert the ignorance of individuals like gifted students and child prodigies in SCT They argue that these particular cases of learners who may not experience social interaction with a “more knowledgeable other” but still progress to an expert level can rise above social norms based on their ability to bring about personal understanding

Finally, although SCT implies the active agents of language learners in the learning process and their mutual relationship in creating their quality of social interaction in ZPD, the excessive appreciation of the more knowledgeable peers in scaffolding process might spoil the true natures of learning That is to say the metaphor of scaffolding does not capture the two-way relationship, but rather implies a one-sided view of this relationship where a more knowledgeable learner provides a support for the less knowledgeable learner

In spite of some above-mentioned shortcomings, SCT still proves its great contribution to our understanding of cognitive development in learning process with the emphasis on the broader social, cultural, and historical context of any human activity SCT‟s rich perspective portrays the dynamic of a learner acquiring knowledge and skills from the society through interacting with other learners and then in turn shaping their environment Correspondingly, interaction by language learners plays a crucial role to gain the learning achievements, which is thoroughly discussed in the next part

24

2.2 Interaction and Foreign Language Learning

2.2.1 Interaction and Peer Interaction in Language Learning

2.2.1.1 Interaction

Interaction plays an important role in SLA Interaction is considered as “the use of language for communicative purposes, with a primary focus on meaning rather than accuracy” (Philp & Tognini, 2009, p 246) It means that interaction is fundamental and beneficial to achieve the communicative outcomes However, interaction definitions are remarkably different from many researchers due to their various perspectives, which results in the indefinite meanings and its inexact constituents The most popular distinctions of interactions are interpersonal interaction and intrapersonal interaction Ellis (1999) states that interpersonal interaction, a kind of face-to-face communication, can be viewed as the social behaviour that occurs when one person communicates with another while intrapersonal interaction can occur inside our minds which relates to the interaction

of different modules of the mind to construct an understanding and the engagement

in “private speech” of SCT Interpersonal interaction refers to both verbal and verbal language while verbal communication is the main attention of majority of language studies Following the trend, the study focuses on the verbal interpersonal interaction in FL classrooms with the shortened term as interaction

non-Various definitions of interactions can be found in many famous works of scholars in terms of characteristics, process, components and their relationships Allwright (1984, p 56) regards interaction as the “fundamental fact of classroom pedagogy” because “everything happening in the classroom happens through a process of live person-to-person interaction” In this sense, interaction is simply considered as daily activities for teaching and learning language in classrooms between a minimal number of two participants

Rivers (1987) and Thurmond and Wambach (2004) pay much attention on the components and the process of interaction while proposing their definitions River (1987, p 4) confirms that interaction involves both expression and comprehension of ideas of the participants The process is described as “one listens