Context matters: Learner beliefs and interactional behaviors in an EFL vs. ESL context

Abstract

Researchers and teachers often invoke context to explain their particular research/teaching issues. However, definitions of context vary widely and the direct impact of the context is often unexplained. Based on research showing contextual differences in second language (L2) learner beliefs and interactional behaviors, the current project compared those factors in two distinct contexts: Chilean English as a foreign language (EFL) (n = 19) and Australian English as a second language (ESL) (n = 27) contexts. In this project, the learners completed a set of group discussion activities as part of their regular class work. They then completed a questionnaire pertaining to L2 motivation, perceptions of group work, and first language (L1) use. The group interaction data were analysed for: (1) the frequency of language-related episodes (LREs); (2) the initiator of LREs (self or other); and (3) L1 use for resolving LREs. The results showed that the EFL learners produced significantly more LREs. The EFL learners also used more L1 to resolve LREs. Factor analyses of the questionnaire data, conducted within- and across-contexts, showed notable differences in the two contexts as well. However, the findings of learner beliefs did not necessarily account for the differential classroom behaviors. We discuss our findings by reference to the socio-linguistic and socio-educational statuses of English in the two contexts as well as approaches to instruction which together shaped the learners’ differential needs and purposes for learning the L2.

Keywords

first language use instructed second language acquisition L2 motivation learner beliefs learning/teaching context reproducibility task-based language teaching

I Introduction

‘Context matters’ is a claim that second language (L2) researchers and teachers alike invoke to explain their specific research and teaching issues. Nonetheless, what is implied by this term context seems to vary widely. From a cognitive perspective, the primary latent construct of context is ‘the quality, quantity, and diversity of input’ (Collins & Muñoz, 2016, p. 134) and the opportunity that learners are afforded to use the target language inside and outside the classroom (Ranta & Meckelborg, 2013). From an instructional perspective, what defines context can be the use of the first language (L1) by teachers (Littlewood & Yu, 2011) and/or learners (DiCamilla & Antón, 2012; García Mayo & Hidalgo, 2017). From a sociocultural perspective, context entails a broader understanding of the power hierarchies and expected norms at the local classroom level as well as at the macro, societal or institutional level which shape L2 learning opportunities and outcomes (Storch & Sato, 2019). While research that describes contextual factors in one specific teaching/learning context has been abundant, comparative investigations across different contexts have been scarce.

Meanwhile, the impact of context has been a lively debated issue in recent years in the field of cognitive and social psychology, due to a concern that the results from original studies are sometimes not supported by their corresponding replication studies (a replication crisis: see Stroebe & Strack, 2014). Open Science Collaboration (OSC, 2015), formed by 270 psychologists, replicated 100 primary studies and discovered that the effects found in the replications were less than half of the original effects. OSC reported that (1) the success of reproducing the results from a primary study depends on methodological factors (e.g. statistical power and instruments) yet the most significant predictor was context, termed ‘hidden moderators’, and, thus, (2) research on a given topic must be comparatively investigated in different contexts. Following the reproducibility movement, Van Bavel, Mende-Siedlecki, Brady, and Reinero (2016) focused on the effect of context in the 100 replications by OSC. In their study, context was broadly defined as time of data collection, culture, location, or population. The results indicated that contextual sensitivity was negatively correlated with the success of the replication attempts; that is, the more context differs, the less likely replication will be successful (see also Schweinsberg et al., 2016).

In the field of L2 teaching/learning, the open science movement has been taken up by the journal of Language Learning (see Marsden, Morgan-Short, Trofimovich, & Ellis, 2018) and several studies have examined the impact of context on the reproducibility. For instance, Morgan-Short et al. (2018) investigated how university-level L2 learners of Spanish in different learning sites process input and how attention to form mediates the degree of comprehension of the input. In the study, the data were collected from five sites in the US, the UK, and Poland. In addition, the data sets from two previous studies (Leow, Hsieh, & Moreno, 2008; Morgan-Short, Heil, Botero-Moriarty, & Ebert, 2012) were included in the analysis (n = 631). While the results obtained in the seven contexts were relatively consistent, there were a few findings that were specific to the individual contexts. Morgan-Short et al. (2018) asserted that ‘multisite endeavors may be particularly difficult to pursue in context-sensitive fields such as L2 research where many context-dependent variables are known to be at play, for example, L1 or L2 experience; educational context; and sociolinguistic, economic, cultural, and affective variables’ (p. 426). The current study took up this challenge by administering similar communicative tasks in the classroom in two different contexts and by comparing attention to form during group work as well as learner beliefs across the contexts.

Exploring context-specific teaching/learning behaviors is crucial because it contributes to developing teaching techniques and tasks better suited to support learners in local contexts. While a premise of task-based research is that the nature of a task determines the ways in which L2 learners cognitively engage with the task (see Baralt, Gilabert, & Robinson, 2014), the mediating factors, including learner beliefs, on task engagement need further investigation (see Philp & Duchesne, 2016). This is because each teaching/learning context, entailing a unique group of L2 learners, may influence those learners’ task engagement. This issue is particularly relevant to English as a L2 – the target language of the current study – because the distinction between English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) is often made but without much explanation. Yet, the pedagogic techniques and tasks are often shared across contexts (Baleghizadeh, Goldouz, & Yousefpoori-Naeim, 2016). Given the rapid expansion of needs for learning English around the globe, it is pivotal to understand which instructional techniques work better for which teaching/learning context, and why.

Despite the importance of understanding the impact of context on L2 learning, research to date has (1) broadly defined context without discussing its underpinning sub-constructs, and/or (2) invoked context as a way of interpreting the findings while the data was collected from one instructional context. Hence, the current study compared learners’ interactional behaviors and beliefs in two distinct contexts. The design was motivated by (1) recent findings suggesting a causal relationship between L2 learners’ beliefs and their classroom behaviors (e.g. Kormos & Préfontaine, 2017; Poupore, 2018; Sato, 2017) and (2) the findings in OSC pertaining to replicability issues and the impact of context. Following Dörnyei and Ryan’s (2015) and MacIntyre’s (2016) broad conceptualization of learner beliefs, in our study, learner beliefs included affective factors such as L2 motivation and perceptions related to communicative interactions. We operationalized context rather broadly as a teaching/learning environment that governs L2 learners’ needs and purposes for learning the language, including (1) the sociolinguistic status of the target language in a given community, and (2) instructional settings where the learners are situated. We narrowed our scope to instructed L2 learning – classrooms – as it is arguably different from naturalistic L2 learning (Sato & Loewen, 2019a) and it is our primary interest.

Importantly, we examined interactional behaviors shown by research to facilitate L2 learning: language-related episodes (LREs), defined by Swain and Lapkin (1998) as ‘any part of dialogue where the students talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or correct themselves or others’ (p. 326). This was because while there may be a host of L2-related phenomena distinguishing L2 learning contexts, our primary aim was to explore instructional issues that are grounded in L2 learning theories. To this end, a growing body of research, drawing on the interactionist and sociocultural perspectives, has revealed that LREs capture learning opportunities whereby learners shift their attention to language form while engaging in meaningful interactions (for reviews, see Loewen & Sato, 2018; Philp, Adams, & Iwashita, 2014; Sato & Ballinger, 2016). By cross-examining learner beliefs and interactional behavior, we explored context-specific learner beliefs and their relationships (or lack thereof) with classroom behaviors that are conducive to L2 learning. Theoretically, we considered that it is important to examine the links among learner beliefs, classroom behavior, and L2 learning. Pedagogically, such examinations would help teachers understand and potentially attempt to shape learner beliefs to increase the effectiveness of instruction on L2 learning.

At the outset, we note that our intention was not to examine learner beliefs as the single determinant of learners’ interactional behaviors (for analyses of the same dataset from a broader perspective drawing on Activity Theory, see Storch & Sato, 2019). Rather, we hypothesized that learner beliefs might be context-specific, and they may be one of the factors affecting learners’ interactional behaviors during communicative activities. As such, we also consider other contextual differences in interpreting the findings.

II Literature review

1 Context and L2 teaching/learning

A limited amount of classroom research has made a direct comparison between different teaching/learning contexts. Simard and Jean (2011), for example, compared approaches to L2 grammar instruction in high school French as a second language (FSL) and ESL classes in Montreal, Quebec, where French and English serve intricate yet competing sociolinguistic statuses (see Ballinger, Lyster, Sterzuk, & Genesee, 2017). Simard and Jean accounted for the observed differences in instruction by reference to the provincial curriculum, teacher training, and the L1 of the teachers. Llinares and Lyster (2014) compared the provision of corrective feedback in three teaching/learning contexts: Content-and-language-integrated-learning (CLIL) classes in Spain, French immersion in Quebec, and Japanese immersion in the US. The researchers interpreted the observed differences in relation to curriculum designs and teacher cognitions of the local contexts (see also Sato, 2011; Sheen, 2004). The use of L1 in the classroom by the teacher and/or among students is another contextual factor that has received some research attention. Having surveyed a number of studies conducted in different contexts, Hall and Cook (2012) contended that the amount of teachers’ L1 use may be affected by their pedagogical beliefs as well as confidence in their own L2 proficiency.

One study that directly compared EFL and ESL contexts in terms of classroom interaction patterns is Azkarai and Oliver (2019). In their study, the participants were young learners (7–8 years old) in Spain (EFL) and Australia (ESL) who engaged in paired communicative tasks. While the ESL students were from diverse L1 backgrounds, the EFL students shared their L1 (i.e. Spanish). The EFL students’ proficiency was lower than that of their ESL counterparts. The analysis focused on the number of errors and corrective feedback. The results showed that, on the one hand, the ESL students provided more corrective feedback to each other; on the other hand, the EFL learners engaged in more negotiation of meaning rooted in communication breakdowns. The authors interpreted the findings in light of the proficiency difference as well as ‘the amount of input received in the target language and learners’ exposure to English’ (p. 278).

In contrast to research focusing on classroom L2 learning, research on L2 learners’ affective factors, especially L2 motivation, has produced rich evidence of contextual differences. The premise is that the environmental, institutional, and instructional differences together may affect ‘a large spiderweb of personality traits and states’ (Dewaele, 2017, p. 444) of L2 learners. For instance, Taguchi, Magid, and Papi (2009) compared motivational systems of learners of English in Japanese, Chinese, and Iranian contexts. Taguchi et al. explained the notable differences by the sociopolitical, sociolinguistic status of English in respective contexts (see also Csizér & Lukács, 2010). Li’s (2014) study compared L2 motivation of Chinese learners of English in China (i.e. EFL) and Chinese learners in New Zealand (i.e. ESL). The motivational questionnaire results revealed that the ESL learners exhibited a stronger ideal L2 self than the EFL learners, arguably because they had significantly more contact with the target language and its native speakers. The researcher invoked the EFL classroom context as an important factor, including the large-class size, a teacher-centered approach, and rare opportunities to engage in meaningful interaction in English. Consequently, EFL learners’ motivation showed a greater instrumental orientation (e.g. exam scores) than that of the ESL learners.

In sum, the research thus far suggests that the ways in which individual groups of learners perceive the needs and purposes for learning the L2, partly formed by the sociolinguistic status of the target language in a community, contribute to the concept of context and how it shapes classroom practices. However, the list of context-specific sociolinguistic features of a language is exhaustive (see Melchers & Shaw, 2013). In this sense, a useful framework that holistically characterizes the sociolinguistic status of English in particular may be Kachru’s (1992) three-circle model of World Englishes: the inner, outer, and expanding circles. Among several key features characterizing each circle (e.g. types and amounts of input learners are exposed to, proximity of English-speaking people and culture, societal norms and learners’ sense of identity in relation to English), the most relevant to instructed L2 learning are the learners’ needs and purposes. Widdowson (1997) argued that ‘English as an international language is English for specific purposes’ (p. 144), suggesting that one way of distinguishing EFL and ESL is what purposes and needs English serves for learners in specific contexts. As Berns (2015) put it: ‘people learn languages in order to fulfill certain communicative needs which may not coincide with the needs of the native speakers of the target language’ (p. 28). The current study partially incorporated this view of World Englishes in operationalizing the two English teaching/learning contexts.

2 The relationship between learner beliefs and interactional behaviors

Despite the evidence pertaining to the impact of context on learner beliefs, research examining the relationship between L2 learners’ affects and interactional behaviors has been traditionally limited, potentially because of the ways in which L2 learning is operationalized. While research investigating learner beliefs tends to focus on learning outcomes (e.g. a correlational analysis between affective traits/states and L2 attainment), research investigating interactional behaviors tends to focus on processes of L2 learning (e.g. relationships between interactional behaviors and learning outcomes). Dörnyei and Kormos (2000) were among the first to address this gap. In their study, task attitudes included various affective factors such as motivation and willingness to communicate (WTC) in L1. The correlational analyses between task attitudes and L2 output during task-based interaction, operationalized as the number of words and turns, revealed significant relationships between task attitudes and the learners’ interactional behaviors. Dörnyei and Kormos (2000, p. 281) claimed that ‘all the cognitive and linguistic processes discussed in the L2 task literature depend, to some extent, on this initial condition [task attitudes]’ (see also Dörnyei, 2002; Dörnyei & Tseng, 2009; Kormos & Préfontaine, 2017; Poupore, 2016, 2018).

WTC is perhaps the construct that has been most closely connected to interactional behaviors. WTC concerns ‘the probability that a learner will use the language in authentic interaction’ (emphasis in original: MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clément, & Noels, 1998, p. 558). For example, Dörnyei and Kormos (2000) identified WTC as a significant correlate with the number of turns (but not with the number of words). Cao and Philp (2006) focused on interactional behaviors such as volunteer to answer and try out a difficult form in the target language during peer interaction and examined their relationships with WTC. The results showed that the frequency of initiation of communication during classroom interaction was related (although weakly) to learners’ affective states such as self-confidence and familiarity levels with interlocutors (see also de St Léger & Storch, 2009; MacIntyre, Baker, Clément, & Conrod, 2001).

Nonetheless, the interactional behaviors in those studies have been operationalized as L2 use in general (e.g. the number of words and turns). Hence, while the findings may connect learner beliefs and interactional behaviors, it is unclear whether those specific interactional behaviors would lead to L2 development. In other words, this research does not account for ‘the motivation-behavior-achievement chain’ (Dörnyei & Kormos, 2000, p. 294) that assumes that certain learner beliefs are ultimately more conducive to L2 learning than others. To that end, a few studies examined the relationship between learners’ affective factors and interactional behaviors that are arguably conducive to L2 development. In Sato (2017), EFL learners were interviewed prior to peer interaction activities in the classroom. The interview data were analysed in relation to the extent of collaboration during group work. The results showed not only that learner beliefs were related to the learners’ interactional behaviors but also that they ultimately explained L2 development measured via pre- and post-tests of grammar and vocabulary. Similar findings were reported in a study by Storch (2004) with ESL learners, where learners’ orientation to (or attitude towards completing) collaborative writing tasks and their goals explained their task behaviors and the dyadic relationships they formed. In another study, Baralt, Gurzynski-Weiss, and Kim (2016) compared learners’ task performance during simple versus complex tasks and revealed that learners’ attitudes, obtained from a post-task questionnaire, were related to learners’ cognition operationalized as attention to language form. They argued that learners’ ‘attitudes towards task performance as well as towards their partner affected their cognitive engagement with form’ (p. 233). The current study follows this line of research investigating learner beliefs and their impacts on learners’ behaviors, specifically those shown to facilitate L2 learning.

3 The present study

The literature pertaining to contextual effects, learner beliefs, and interactional behaviors has been abundant, yet none, to our knowledge, has investigated those factors together. Given (1) L2 learners’ affective differences in different contexts and (2) the relationship between L2 learner beliefs and their interactional behaviors, it can be assumed that learners in different teaching/learning contexts would engage in the same tasks in different manners. Yet, the literature suggests that other contextual variables may also play a role in determining L2 learners’ classroom behaviors in different teaching/learning contexts. From a Bayesian perspective, Gelman (2015) claimed that ‘once we realize that effects are contextually bound, a next step is to study how they vary’ (p. 633). Following this direction, the current study compared two contexts based on a hypothesis that interactional behaviors are susceptible to contextual factors including learner beliefs. We acknowledge that the two contexts – Chilean EFL and Australian ESL – may not represent all EFL and ESL contexts in the world. Our objective was to explore factors accounting for interactional behaviors specific to the two teaching/learning contexts, each of which shared features that are typically ascribed to EFL or ESL contexts. The overall research question, therefore, asked: What affective and contextual factors influence L2 learners’ attention to form during communicative tasks in the EFL and ESL classrooms?

III Method

1 Contexts and participants

Based on the sociolinguistic statuses of English and instructional settings detailed in this section, we operationally defined the two contexts as EFL (Chile) and ESL (Australia). The two teaching/learning environments are constructed by the learners’ different types and degrees of needs and purposes, as shown by research focusing on motivation (for Chile, see Kormos & Kiddle, 2013; for Australia, Matsumoto, 2015). While English is necessary for ESL learners in Australia for their outside-class daily communication and work (Murray, 2013), such needs do not exist for Chilean EFL learners. Despite the increasing demands of English for professional purposes in Chile, the actual needs are still limited (Barahona, 2016). Table 1 summarizes the sociolinguistic features of Chilean EFL and Australian ESL contexts.

Table 1.

Sociolinguistic features of English in Chile and Australia.

	Chilean EFL	Australia ESL
Circles	Expanding circle	Inner circle
Proximity of people/culture	Far	Close
Outside-class input	Scarce (media)	Plenty
Communicative needs	Low	High
Educational needs	Low	High
Professional needs	Low (but increasing)	High

From those sociolinguistic contexts, university-level English learners in Chile (n = 19: three females and 16 males) and Australia (n = 27: 20 females and seven males) participated in the study. Their ages ranged from 20–26 (mean age = 20.29) in Chile and 18–24 (mean age = 22.12) in Australia. The learners in both contexts were commerce majors and, thus, they shared a common interest in their professional future. In Chile, the class met twice a week for a period of 90 minutes each for 14 weeks. In Australia, the class was held three times a week and met for four hours in total per week for 12 weeks.

A few key differences existed in the two settings, relating to learners’ needs and purposes for learning the language. First, the English class was a required subject for the learners in the EFL context whereas it was an elective for the learners in the ESL context. Second, in the EFL class, the assessment was informal and the instructor gave extra credit according to the performance during the activities. In the ESL class, the activities were formally assessed. The classes in both contexts were communicative, with the teachers using activities which engaged their learners in meaningful communication (see Richards & Rodgers, 2014), with occasional focus on form. However, as is the case in many EFL classes, the Chilean instructor occasionally provided explicit grammar explanations. The Chilean class was guided by a theme-based textbook (McCarthy, McCarten, & Sandiford, 2008) whereas the instructor in the Australian ESL class developed her own tasks, using content-based materials related to business and commerce. The language of instruction was English; however, in the Chilean class, the instructor occasionally used Spanish – the teacher’s and students’ shared L1 – to guide the learners to complete the task (see Storch & Sato, 2019). With regards to the learners’ L1, while the Chilean EFL students shared an L1 (i.e. Spanish), the learners in the Australian ESL class came from diverse language backgrounds. Nonetheless, reflecting the trends in Australia’s international student population,¹ more than half of the learners in the ESL class were from China (n = 19). The other students were from Vietnam (n = 3), Japan (n = 2), Italy (n = 2), and Singapore (n = 1). The proficiency of the learners in both contexts was considered intermediate. However, what intermediate meant in the two contexts differed. The EFL learners were assessed at B1 according to the Common European Framework of Reference, and the ESL learners had passed the university entrance requirement of IELTS 6.5 (or its equivalent). Table 2 summarizes the participants’ demographic background and instructional settings.

Table 2.

Participants and instructional settings in the two contexts.

	Chilean EFL	Australia ESL
Participants	19 (3F; 16M)	27 (20F; 7M)
Age	M = 20.29; SD = 1.72	M = 22.12.; SD = 1.83
Proficiency	Intermediate (CEFR: B1)	Intermediate-advanced (IELTS: > 6.5)
First language (L1)	Spanish	Varied (70% Chinese)
Major	Commerce/Business	Commerce/Business
Class	Required	Elective
Content	Theme-based textbook	Discipline specific English for academic purposes (EAP)
Teaching method	Communicative (with occasional explicit grammar instruction)	Communicative
Language of instruction	English (mostly)	English
L1 of instructor	Spanish (native-level English)	English

2 Data collection

Two types of data were collected to answer the research question: Recorded group interactions and survey responses. In Chile, group work was recorded in four sessions over two weeks (Session 1 = two groups; Session 2 = four groups; Session 3 = three groups; Session 4 = four groups), totalling 13 group interactions (351 minutes in total; M = 27.01; SD = 2.66). In Australia, the data was collected over three weeks (Session 1 = five groups; Session 2 = six groups; Session 3 = six groups), resulting in 17 group interactions (536 minutes in total; M = 31.53; SD = 1.87). As can be seen from the means and standard deviations, each group interaction took a comparable amount of time. An online survey (SurveyMonkey) was distributed immediately after the last group-work session in both contexts. As the survey was assigned outside class time, not all the learners completed it. In total, 17 learners completed the survey in each context (n = 34). Figure 1 depicts the overall procedure of the study.

Figure 1.

Procedure of the study.

a Tasks

Similar communicative tasks were designed and implemented in the two contexts. Integrated into regular classes taught by the class teachers, the tasks were group discussion activities. Learners formed self-selected groups of 3–5 students. The task required the groups to discuss their given topic and reach consensus as a group (25–30 minutes). The discussion topics dealt with macroeconomic issues, in line with the learners’ university major (i.e. commerce) in order to encourage them to engage in meaningful communication. The topics included contemporary, controversial issues such as ‘the right to strike,’ ‘bank rescue,’ and ‘pension age.’ To further contextualize the tasks, the discussion questions and materials were slightly altered according to the two contexts. For instance, when the task was to analyse and predict future economic performance, the learners in the two contexts were provided with graphs depicting each country’s economic growth and unemployment rates for the past 10 years (see Appendix A).

According to Williams’ (1999) taxonomy of tasks, which ranges from focus-on-forms to focus on meaning, the discussion tasks used in this project can be classified as focus on meaning. In addition, the tasks were in accordance with the four criteria for a task proposed by Ellis (2003): the learners’ primary focus on meaning (discussion topics relevant to learners’ major); information gap such as an exchange of opinions (controversial topics); reliance on their own linguistic resources (no instruction of specific linguistic features); and a clear goal that is not language-focused (reaching a consensus as a group).

b Questionnaire

Based on the literature pertaining to designing a questionnaire (Dörnyei & Taguchi, 2010; Gillham, 2008), as well as research investigating topics relevant to our study such as L2 motivation (e.g. Papi & Teimouri, 2014), peer interaction (e.g. Fernández Dobao & Blum, 2013; Storch, 2009), peer corrective feedback (e.g. Storch, 2013), and L1 use (e.g. Levine, 2003), a questionnaire was designed and piloted. The questionnaire was distributed in English, although the participants were allowed to answer the questions in their L1s. Five EFL learners answered in Spanish but all ESL learners answered in English. The answers in Spanish were translated by a research assistant and verified by another assistant.

The first section focused on L2 motivation. The items were selected from Papi and Teimouri (2014) that investigated a wide range of motivational constructs and slightly altered to the learners of the current study (i.e. university-level L2 learners). The items ranged from L2-self based (e.g. ‘I can imagine myself living abroad in the future and having discussions in English.’) to instrumentality based (e.g. ‘Studying English is important for me because English will be necessary for job success in the future.’). The second section, drawing on the original questionnaire by Storch (2009) as well as Fernández Dobao and Blum (2013), tapped into group work and elicited learners’ understanding and beliefs of the effectiveness of interacting with their classmates (e.g. ‘I think communicating with my classmates will help me develop my speaking skills.’). The third section narrowed down peer interaction to corrective feedback (e.g. ‘I think students should help each other by pointing out each other’s grammar errors.’). The items were taken from Sato’s (2013) study in which learner beliefs regarding peer corrective feedback were investigated. The final section tapped into learners’ perceptions of L1 use (e.g. ‘Using my mother tongue is useful to complete group activities.’). The questions in this final section were informed by Levine’s (2003) study.

The initial version was piloted with a group of 25 learners from the Chilean context. In the classroom, the researcher (the first author) read out each item and the learners were asked to identify ambiguous and unclear items. Based on their feedback, the clarity of wording was improved and unclear items were removed. The final version consisted of 26 items in total, with 21 items on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). The reliabilities calculated by Cronbach’s alpha showed acceptable scores for each category in both contexts: (1) L2 motivation (8 items; EFL: α = .80; ESL: α = .90); (2) group work (4 items; EFL: α = .91; ESL: α = .88); (3) peer feedback (6 items; EFL: α = .72; ESL: α = .76); and (4) L1 use (3 items; ESL: α = .86; ESL: α = .70). Five questions were open ended, eliciting learners’ elaborated perceptions of a preceding Likert-scale question. The participants were asked to elaborate their thoughts and to write a minimum of 150 words for each question (for the full questionnaire, see Appendix B).

3 Data analysis

a LREs

All group interactions were transcribed and coded for LREs, that is, episodes where learners deliberated about language use. The LREs tended to deal with a range of issues related to lexis (e.g. word meaning) and grammatical form (e.g. verb tense). The LREs ranged in length from one turn (e.g. when a learner self-repairs) or involved many turns as learners considered suggestions and counter-suggestions. Once identified, LREs were analysed for how they were initiated, distinguishing between self- and other-initiated LREs. LREs generated by a learner’s self-repair or by a learner’s request for confirmation from other group members were coded as self-initiated LREs. When LREs started with corrective feedback, these were coded as other-initiated LREs (for more detailed discussion of coding of LREs, see Storch, 2013). LREs were also analysed for L1 use. We calculated the proportion of LREs involving L1 in relation to the total number of LREs in each group interaction. Except 1 is an example of a self-initiated LRE from the Chilean data and Excerpt 2 shows another-initiated LRE from the Australian data.

Excerpt 1 (self-initiated LRE):

S1: ‘For a period of six months’ or ‘during six months’ is better?

S2: Both are correct.

Excerpt 2 (other-initiated LRE):

S1: We should rescue banks but government should also restrict the lending.

S2: Regulate.

To check for inter-rater reliability, the two researchers coded randomly selected transcripts from each context that accounted for a total of 21% of the entire dataset. The inter-rater reliability, calculated by a simple agreement rate, reached 84% overall, including identification and codification of LREs. The second round of coding of another set of transcripts (10%) by the two researchers reached 98% agreement.

In order to compare the EFL and ESL contexts, the data were submitted to independent-samples t-tests, followed by Holm-Bonferroni corrections. Based on 13 interactions in Chile and 17 in Australia, the following LRE indices were compared: (1) the total number of LREs, (2) initiation of LREs, and (3) LREs involving L1. To normalize the comparison, the raw frequencies were divided by the duration of each interaction, yielding LREs per minute for each group interaction. After discovering that the LRE/minute scores were significantly different in the two contexts, the analysis of LRE initiations was conducted on the proportional differences.

b Learner beliefs

In exploring affective differences between the two teaching/learning contexts, principal component analyses were conducted on the survey data. First, two factor analyses were separately conducted on the Chilean EFL and Australian ESL data to examine constructs that characterize the learner beliefs in the two contexts. Second, the resulting factor loadings were compared across the two contexts.

The survey data, originally pertaining to 21 Likert-scale items, were submitted to preliminary factor analyses to ensure the factorability (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2016). During the screening process, five items in each dataset that were correlated either higher than .80 (i.e. multicollinearity) or below .40 were removed. For example, in both datasets, Items 12 and 13 showed multicollinearity (Chile: .92; Australia: .85); hence, Item 13 was retained, the question that deemed to tap into the construct of interest more directly (see Appendix B). The resulting datasets contained 16 items each. In both datasets, Bartlett’s tests of sphericity were significant (Chile: p < .001; Australia: p < .001), indicating that there were relationships between the items and a factor analysis was appropriate. Due to the small sample sizes, the parallel analysis (O’Connor, 2000) was chosen in order to decide the number of factor loadings. The comparative analysis of the Eigenvalues suggested that three components be retained for both datasets. The resulting factors explained cumulatively 65.5% in the Chilean EFL and 53.9% in the Australia ESL data. Finally, based on the values for the loaded factors as well as the nature of questions, items for each factor were decided by the researchers (see Jolliffe, 2002).

After identifying the items that were commonly agreed (or disagreed), the items loaded on any factor (10 items) were submitted to independent-samples t-tests to compare the two contexts. Statistical assumptions of the parametric test were met including the homogeneities of variance. Holm-Bonferroni corrections were applied for the multiple t-tests.

Data of the five open-ended questions, which contained 8,672 words in total, was analysed qualitatively. Because the current study was exploratory, the analysis drew on some of the principles of grounded theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). During the coding stage, recurring themes were first identified in each transcript (open coding). The themes that emerged were then explored again in the other comments to increase the validity of the coding. The analysis led to three overall themes in both contexts: First, needs and purposes related to the learners’ beliefs about English as a tool for their future and their reasons for studying the language. Second, peer interaction pertained to the participants’ beliefs related to engagement with their classmates during group work as well as their beliefs of communicative tasks in general. Comments related to peer corrective feedback were included in the code of peer interaction. Finally, the code of L1 entailed the beliefs regarding the participants’ perceived purposes/functions of L1 during peer interaction tasks and how useful L1 was to complete the tasks.

IV Results

1 LREs

In total, 276 LREs (mean LREs per group interaction = 21.23, SD = 10.74) were identified in the Chilean EFL context and 147 in the Australian ESL context (mean LREs per group interaction = 8.65, SD = 6.02). The t-test, applied to the frequencies of LREs per minute, yielded a significant difference between the two contexts: t(16.96) = 4.91, p < .001, d = 1.77. It was found that the Chilean EFL learners (M = 0.78, SD = 0.36) produced more LREs per minute than the Australian ESL learners (M = 0.27, SD = 0.19). With regards to LRE initiations, the analysis showed that LREs in the Chilean data contained significantly more self-initiations (t(24.15) = 4.60, p < .001, d = 1.62), meaning that the proportion of LREs that started with corrective feedback was higher in the Australian data. Finally, the analysis of LREs containing L1 also detected a significant difference; a greater proportion of the Chilean LREs contained L1 than the Australian LREs: t(15.99) = 5.45, p < .001, d = 2.09.

2 Learner beliefs in individual contexts

The principal component analysis on the Chilean EFL data showed that Factor 1 was loaded with seven (r = .77), Factor 2 with three (r = .73), and Factor 3 with four (r = .44) items. Factor 1 was loaded with items related to the learners’ general perceptions of learning English and thus named ‘English learning’. Specifically, the loaded items were Items 3, 6, 1, 4, 8, 5, and 13 (in the order of coefficients). Note, however, Item 13 was related to group work specifically. Factor 2 was loaded with three items (Items 22, 24, and 23) all related to L1 use. Hence, this construct was titled as ‘L1 use’. Finally, Factor 3 included Items 19, 10, 17, and 20. The four items asked about the learners’ perception of correcting each other’s L2 errors; therefore, the factor was named as ‘peer corrective feedback’.

In the Australian ESL data, Factor 1 was loaded with six (r = .62), Factor 2 with three (r = .66), and Factor 3 with three items (r = .77). Factor 1 included Items 4, 18, 1, 17, 6, and 13. As the component was highly correlated with items pertaining to peer interaction (Items 18 and 17), it was named ‘English learning and peer interaction’. Factor 2 was loaded with Items 19, 10, and 20, all of which pertained to ‘peer corrective feedback’. Finally, Factor 3 included Items 22, 23, and 24; therefore, the component was labelled as ‘L1 use’. Table 3 summarizes the loaded factors and Table 4 shows the loaded factors in the two contexts along with the means and standard deviations of the loaded items.

Table 3.

Loaded factors in the two studies.

	Chilean EFL (n = 17)			Australian ESL (n = 17)
	Construct	items	r	Construct	items	r
Factor 1	English learning	(3, 6, 1, 4, 8, 5, 13)	.77	English learning and peer interaction	(4, 18, 1, 17, 6, 13)	.62
Factor 2	L1 use	(22, 24, 23)	.73	peer corrective feedback	(19, 10, 20)	.66
Factor 3	peer corrective feedback	(19, 10, 17, 20)	.44	L1 use	(22, 23, 24)	.77

Table 4.

Factor loadings and communalities with means of the loaded items.

		Factor: CHI(com)	Mean (SD)	Factor: AUS(com)	Mean (SD)
1:	I would like to study English even if I am not required to.	F1 (.75)	5.00 (1.00)	F1 (.69)	4.71 (.99)
3:	Studying English is important for me in order to gain the approval of others (peers, teachers, family, employer, etc.).	F1 (.80)	5.47 (.79)	–	–
4:	Studying English is important for me because English will be necessary for job success in the future.	F1 (.73)	5.65 (.70)	F1 (.80)	5.24 (1.03)
5:	Studying English is necessary for me because I don’t want to get a poor score on English proficiency tests or fail the course.	F1 (.61)	5.18 (.88)	–	–
6:	I enjoy learning English.	F1 (.75)	4.65 (.93)	F1 (.64)	5.00 (1.00)
8:	I would like to know more about people from English-speaking countries.	F1 (.67)	4.94 (.83)	–	–
13:	I think communicating with my classmates will help me develop my speaking skills.	F1 (.57)	5.29 (.85)	F1 (.54)	5.06 (.89)
17:	I think students should help each other by pointing out each other’s grammar errors.	F3 (.63)	4.88 (.99)	F1 (.67)	4.35 (1.06)
18:	I like helping my classmate when he/she makes a grammar error.	–	–	F1 (.72)	4.71 (.92)
22*:	I use my first language during group activities.	F2 (.93)	2.35 (.86)	F3 (.83)	4.47 (.79)
23*:	Using my first language is useful to complete group activities.	F2 (.83)	3.05 (1.34)	F3 (.72)	4.53 (.72)
24*:	Using my first language is necessary to complete group activities.	F2 (.87)	2.35 (1.27)	F3 (.71)	3.53 (.87)
10:	I enjoy communication activities with my classmates.	F3 (.65)	5.29 (.77)	F2 (–.68)	4.76 (.83)
19*:	When my classmate makes an error, I can point it out.	F3 (.86)	5.12 (.60)	F2 (.84)	4.05 (.75)
20*:	When my classmate makes an error, I can provide a correction.	F3 (.59)	5.06 (.66)	F2 (.62)	4.47 (.79)

Note. The scores derive from a six-point Likert scale. Factor loadings <.4 were suppressed. * indicates items that were significantly different in the two contexts.

The results show that the EFL and ESL learners shared motivational factors, as shown by the items loaded for Factor 1 (English learning), all of which demonstrated high agreement rates of above 5.0. However, the items were weighted differently in the two contexts. For example, the item that had the most significant contribution (i.e. the highest communality) to Factor 1 in the Chilean context was Item 6 (‘I enjoy learning English’) while in the case of the Australian learners, it was Item 4 (‘Studying English is important for me because English will be necessary for job success in the future’). Furthermore, in Factor 1, there were items that were loaded for each context independently. Items 3, 5, and 8 were loaded only in the Chilean Factor 1, while Items 17 and 18 were loaded in the Australian context only.

It appears then that learners were motivated to a comparable extent in both contexts but for different reasons. The different communalities of the same items loaded in the same factors, which indicate the extents of contribution of the items to each factor, provide further insights. First, it seems that while the ESL learners saw needs of English for instrumental purposes relating to future uses, learning English was associated with immediate satisfactions for the EFL learners. Also, based on the nature of Items 3, 5, and 8, it can be said that the EFL learners’ motivation was substantiated by knowing more about people from English speaking countries. In Section IV, we will interpret in more details the nature of learner beliefs in the two contexts, in relation to the interactional behaviors.

3 Learner beliefs of EFL vs. ESL contexts

The following t-tests, which examined affective differences between the two groups of learners, detected significant differences in five comparisons (see * in Table 4). First, three items pertaining to L1 use (Factor 2 in Chile and Factor 3 in Australia) yielded significant differences: Item 22: t(32) = 7.46, p < .001, d = 2.57; Item 23: t(32) = 3.98, p < .001, d = 1.38; and Item 24: t(32) = 3.14, p = .004, d = 1.08. The results show that the ESL learners thought they used more L1 during group work and they perceived more importance and necessity for using L1 than the EFL learners. Second, the two items that tapped into corrective feedback (Factor 3 in Chile and Factor 2 in Australia) were significantly different: Item 19: t(32) = −4.55, p < .001, d = 1.58, and Item 20: t(32) = −2.67, p = .012, d = 0.81.

V Discussion

The interaction data showed that the EFL learners engaged in more LREs, self-initiated proportionally more LREs, and used more L1 to resolve language issues. Intuitively, those results are not surprising. Nonetheless, we sought to explore in greater depth the different factors that might have affected the learners’ attention to form in two instructionally and socio-linguistically distinct contexts.

The first factor relates to the sociolinguistic statuses of English in Chile and Australia. In Chile, the classroom was presumably the only place for the EFL learners to use English and engage in deliberations about language use; in Australia, the ESL learners had chances to be exposed to and use English outside the classroom for meaningful purposes.² Such a sociolinguistic difference might have increased the EFL learners’ focus on language form during communicative tasks. The second factor is instructional settings. Although a communicative approach to instruction was adopted in both contexts, in the EFL class we observed a greater focus on forms, with the teacher on occasions providing explicit grammar explanations. Explicit grammar instruction was rarely observed in the ESL class. It may be the case that explicit grammar instruction in conjunction with previous learning experiences with traditional grammar-focused methods encouraged the EFL learners to devote more attention to form (see Azkarai & Oliver, 2019; García Mayo & Imaz Agirre, 2019).

The findings of learner beliefs may also explain why the ESL learners focused on language issues to a lesser extent. It appears that the ESL learners perceived the potential of the tasks not only for L2 learning but also for content and skill learning. For one of the open-ended questions (Item 26) eliciting their understanding of group work, an ESL learner stated: ‘Raising the sense of cooperation. I think the ability to work in a team is crucial in our society.’ In the ESL classroom, the tasks, focusing on macroeconomic issues related to the learners’ major, may have promoted positive interdependence in groups (see Johnson, Johnson, Roseth, & Shin, 2014; Sato & Viveros, 2016) towards a mutual goal of learning content and language. However, the EFL learners may have isolated content in the tasks psychologically and behaviorally, and perceived them solely for L2 learning. This difference was evident in learners’ responses to an open-ended question that asked: ‘What did you feel the main purpose of the group discussion activity was?’ The majority of the EFL learners (14 out of 17) stated language-related purposes such as ‘to improve my[our] English’, ‘to find new ways to learn English’, and ‘to evaluate my English level’. However, 65% (11 out of 17) of the ESL learners focused on content-related purposes such as ‘to see different ideas from different people’, ‘to share our ideas and improve interpersonal skills’, and ‘to make new friends’. Those beliefs may explain the difference found in their interactional behaviors.

Despite some connections between learner beliefs and attention to form, some of the learner beliefs seem to contradict actual interactional behaviors, particularly in terms of initiation of LREs and use of L1 in resolving LREs. Items 19 and 20 asked about learners’ confidence level of correcting L2 errors in their classmates’ talk. The results showed that responses were overall positive (ranging from 4.05 to 5.12), as also shown by comments for Item 21 (‘How do you feel about students’ correcting each other’s errors?’), such as: ‘I think it’s a good idea for improve your classmates’ skills and myself’ (Chile); and ‘Peer review not only helps the person who makes the mistake but also the person who corrects it’ (Australia). However, for both of the items, the EFL learners’ scores were significantly higher than those of the ESL learners (Item 19: d = 1.58; Item 20: d = 0.81), showing that the EFL learners were more confident than the ESL learners in providing corrective feedback. This tendency seems, at first glance, to contradict the findings related to initiation of LREs; that is, that the ESL learners initiated more LREs via corrective feedback than the EFL learners.

One way of interpreting the contradiction between learner beliefs and interactional behaviors may be the learners’ understanding of L2 learning and feedback. It seems that the EFL learners related L2 learning and feedback to lexical development. Nine out of 17 EFL learners referred to lexical issues when asked about corrective feedback (Item 21): ‘When we talk about economic terms, it is important to correct each other’; ‘When my words made no sense, my teammates helped me.’ However, the ESL learners (8/17) seemed to have perceived corrective feedback in relation to grammar: ‘When we point out other’s error in grammar, we learn that grammar again’; ‘Especially when you’re making a particular grammar error without being aware of it, feedback can be extremely useful.’ Perhaps, the EFL learners, whose proficiency was relatively lower, found the tasks to be challenging in terms of economic terminology. In fact, 38.35% of the LREs in the EFL context started with ‘How do you say . . . in English?’ These self-initiated LREs, in turn, reduced the proportion of LREs started with corrective feedback.

A conflictive relationship between learner beliefs and interactional behaviors was found for L1 use as well. The t-tests showed that the ESL learners considered L1 more useful and necessary than the EFL learners (Items 23 and 24); however, the learners in the ESL context used much less L1 to resolve the LREs. Furthermore, the ESL learners reported more use of L1 than the EFL learners (Item 22). Similar to other EFL and ESL contexts, the learners in the current project were discouraged to use L1 but for different reasons: pedagogical vs. practical. While the EFL learners were told not to use L1 by the curriculum and/or teacher, the ESL learners were not able to use L1 unless there happened to be a shared L1 in the group. Note that in our dataset of the ESL context, only one of the six groups was composed of all Chinese L1 speakers and the other groups had between one to three members who were L1-Chinese speakers. It may be the case that the EFL learners, being aware that they were not supposed to use L1 in their L2 classes, reported that they did not use L1, as shown by one of the comments for Item 25: ‘It is one of the main rules . . . but you have to find the solution to express themselves well.’ Nevertheless, it was a tool that they frequently resorted to in order to resolve linguistic issues. On the other hand, for the ESL learners, L1 might have been perceived as a useful tool, but one that was not readily available. As one of the ESL learners said: ‘In my group there are members from different nationalities, hence, we are not able to use our first language.’

VI Conclusions and pedagogical implications

The current study explored multiple factors that may explain L2 learners’ interactional behaviors, specifically those pertaining to attention to form. The results showed that the learners’ attention to form during similar communicative tasks was different in the two contexts. The results imply that task characteristics and implementation procedures may not be the sole determinants of the ways in which L2 learners engage with a task. Furthermore, we explored the behavioral differences in relation to learner beliefs which were found to be different in the two contexts as well. However, the belief data did not necessarily account for the behavioral data. Hence, the constructs examined in the current study may be one of many other variables moderating context-specific interactional behaviors. To this end, we argue that the construct of context may entail the sociolinguistic, socio-educational statuses of the target language as well as the instructional settings where the learners are situated, which together construct the learners’ differing needs and purposes to pursue their L2 learning. We hope that future research will compare more contexts with identical implementation conditions in order to reveal (1) what context entails, and (2) what context does to L2 teaching and learning.

The present study has several methodological weaknesses. First, the sample sizes in the two contexts were small, especially for running rigorous principal component analyses. Related to the questionnaire, the items were limited to specific aspects of learner beliefs. One of the reasons for the observed multicollinearities may be that the instrument was piloted only in the EFL context. Nonetheless, the different internal consistencies in the two contexts themselves are a telling fact of L2 learners’ different beliefs in different teaching/learning contexts. To this end, future research must investigate other psychological constructs (e.g. L2 self system, WTC, foreign-language-enjoyment, foreign-language-classroom-anxiety, interaction mindset, etc.) in relation to interactional behaviors. Once belief data are collected, a study may benefit from ‘a straightforward correlational research design’ (Dörnyei & Kormos, 2000, p. 281) or a regression analysis to investigate how learner psychology predicts their actual behaviors (see Plonsky & Oswald, 2017). Furthermore, the current study did not examine the dynamic, situational nature of learner beliefs. Consequently, we do not know whether the questionnaire, distributed immediately after task engagement, tapped into the learners’ individual differences (trait-like) or reflective emotions (state-like). It is possible that the learners’ beliefs were constantly changing as they engaged in the task (see situational WTC in MacIntyre & Legatto, 2011; Yashima, MacIntyre, & Ikeda, 2018). Future research may benefit from a longitudinal design in which learner beliefs and interactional behaviors are observed over a period of time. With regards to the communicative activities, group work (simply interacting with each other in English) with authentic topics was new to the EFL learners while it was more familiar to the ESL learners. However, we observed that the tasks were challenging for both groups of learners due to the content. In fact, research comparing the content and task familiarity effects (e.g. Qui & Lo, 2017) suggests that learners tend to increase their cognitive engagement, often operationalized as LREs, when they engage with unfamiliar content. This might have contributed to the difference in the amount of attention to form found in this study.

We contend that the two contexts in the current study were fair representations of EFL and ESL contexts. In terms of the learners’ demographics, however, the ESL learners’ L1s were skewed towards Chinese, which may not be the case in other ESL contexts. Future research can consider the sharing (or not) of L1s as another contextual factor because it may affect the use of L1 in resolving LREs during group work. Another issue related to the tasks was that the groups were self-selected by the learners. It might be the case that the results of the LREs, L1 use, and learner beliefs were affected by the fact that the learners worked with classmates whom they were familiar with. However, our primary interest was to investigate group interactions in authentic, intact classrooms; in most L2 classes, learners are allowed to choose with whom they want to work. Finally, we did not measure learning outcomes. According to the differential numbers of LREs, it is possible that the tasks functioned in a more effective manner in the EFL than in ESL contexts. However, we remain speculative of such a conclusion as the same type of interactional move (e.g. peer corrective feedback) may result in different learning outcomes (see Sato, 2017; Sato & Lyster, 2012).

We argue that the study carries high ecological validity because the data were collected in intact classrooms in which the learners engaged in activities embedded in regular classes taught by the class teachers. The findings from classroom-based studies are perhaps more easily extrapolated to pedagogical practices (see Sato & Loewen, 2019b). Based on the findings of the current study, we make a few pedagogical suggestions. First, to reduce the cognitive load of tasks with challenging contents, a pedagogical option may be to teach specific vocabulary prior to the task so that the learners can focus on the content more. Second, in relation to learner beliefs, the results suggest that the EFL learners’ motivation was largely substantiated by immediate learning goals, which might have increased their overt attention to form. For them to focus more on meaning, recent pedagogical efforts to enhance learners’ future vision (see Dörnyei & Kubanyiova, 2014) might be useful. Finally, contextual differences aside, facilitating collaborative relationships among the learners when engaging in group work is crucial to maximize the potential of peer interaction for L2 learning (Sato, 2020; Storch, 2013).

To conclude, context does matter. However, the construct of context entails a number of components such as the sociolinguistic status of the target language, learner beliefs, instructional settings, etc. (see Storch & Sato, 2019). While examining those variables in a single study may not be feasible, we hope that researchers consider context in its broader sense and as a potential moderator of the effectiveness of L2 instruction. In so doing, we would be able to provide teachers with effective yet context-appropriate pedagogical recommendations.

Supplemental Material

Appendices – Supplemental material for Context matters: Learner beliefs and interactional behaviors in an EFL vs. ESL context

Supplemental material, Appendices for Context matters: Learner beliefs and interactional behaviors in an EFL vs. ESL context by Masatoshi Sato and Neomy Storch in Language Teaching Research

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was partially supported by the Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnólogico from the Ministry of Education of Chile (FONDECYT: 1181533) as well as PIA (CIE160009) from the Chilean National Commission of Science and Technology (CONICYT), awarded to the first author, and Dyason Fellowship by the University of Melbourne (Grant/Award Number: 00065961), awarded to the second author.

ORCID iD

Masatoshi Sato

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Azkarai

Oliver

(2019). Negative feedback on task repetition: ESL vs. EFL child settings. The Language Learning Journal, 47, 269–280.

Baleghizadeh

Goldouz

Yousefpoori-Naeim

(2016). What grammar activities do ELT workbooks focus on? In Tomlinson

(Ed.), SLA research and materials development for language learning (pp. 153–165). New York: Routledge.

Ballinger

Lyster

Sterzuk

Genesee

(2017). Context-appropriate crosslinguistic pedagogy. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 5, 30–57.

Barahona

(2016). Challenges and accomplishments of ELT at primary level in Chile: Towards the aspiration of becoming a bilingual country. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24, 1–24.

Baralt

Gilabert

Robinson

(Eds.). (2014). Task sequencing and instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury.

Baralt

Gurzynski-Weiss

Kim

(2016). The effects of task complexity and classroom environment on learners’ engagement with the language. In Sato

Ballinger

(Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 209–239). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Berns

(2015). Pedagogy and World Englishes: The legacy of Yamuna Kachru. World Englishes, 34, 22–30.

Cao

Philp

(2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, 34, 480–493.

Collins

Muñoz

(2016). The foreign language classroom: Current perspectives and future considerations. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 133–147.

10.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

11.

Csizér

Lukács

(2010). The comparative analysis of motivation, attitudes and selves: The case of English and German in Hungary. System, 38, 1–13.

12.

de St Léger

Storch

(2009). Learners’ perceptions and attitudes: Implications for willingness to communicate in an L2 classroom. System, 37, 269–285.

13.

Dewaele

J.-M.

(2017). Psychological dimensions and foreign language anxiety. In Loewen

Sato

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 433–450). New York: Routledge.

14.

DiCamilla

F.J.

Antón

(2012). Functions of L1 in the collaborative interaction of beginning and advanced second language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22, 160–188.

15.

Dörnyei

(2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In Robinson

(Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 137–158). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

16.

Dörnyei

Kormos

(2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4, 275–300.

17.

Dörnyei

Kubanyiova

(2014). Motivating learners, motivating teachers: Building vision in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Dörnyei

Ryan

(2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York: Routledge.

19.

Dörnyei

Taguchi

(2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.

20.

Dörnyei

Tseng

W.-T.

(2009). Motivational processing in interactional tasks. In Mackey

Polio

(Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 117–134). New York: Routledge.

21.

Ellis

(2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

22.

Fernández Dobao

Blum

(2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners’ attitudes and perceptions. System, 41, 365–378.

23.

García Mayo

M.P.

Hidalgo

M.A.

(2017). L1 use among young EFL mainstream and CLIL learners in task-supported interaction. System, 67, 132–145.

24.

García Mayo

M.P.

Imaz Agirre

(2019). Task modality and pair formation method: Their impact on patterns of interaction and LREs among EFL primary school children. System, 80, 165–175.

25.

Gelman

(2015). The connection between varying treatment effects and the crisis of unreplicable research: A Bayesian perspective. Journal of Management, 41, 632–643.

26.

Gillham

(2008). Developing a questionnaire. 2nd edition. New York: Continuum.

27.

Hall

Cook

(2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 45, 271–308.

28.

Institution of International Education. (2018). Project atlas. New York: Institution of International Education. Available at: https://www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Project-Atlas/Explore-Data/Australia (accessed April 2020).

29.

Johnson

D.W.

Johnson

R.T.

Roseth

Shin

T.S.

(2014). The relationship between motivation and achievement in interdependent situations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44, 622–633.

30.

Jolliffe

(2002). Principal component analysis. New York: Willey & Sons.

31.

Kachru

B.B.

(1992). The other tongue: English across cultures. 2nd edition. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

32.

Kormos

Kiddle

(2013). The role of socio-economic factors in motivation to learn English as a foreign language: The case of Chile. System, 41, 399–412.

33.

Kormos

Préfontaine

(2017). Affective factors influencing fluent performance: French learners’ appraisals of second language speech tasks. Language Teaching Research, 21, 699–716.

34.

Leow

R.P.

Hsieh

H.C.

Moreno

(2008). Attention to form and meaning revisited. Language Learning, 58, 665–695.

35.

Levine

G.S.

(2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 343–364.

36.

(2014). Differences in the motivation of Chinese learners of English in a foreign and second language context. System, 42, 451–461.

37.

Littlewood

(2011). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching, 44, 64–77.

38.

Llinares

Lyster

(2014). The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: A comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms. The Language Learning Journal, 42, 181–194.

39.

Loewen

Sato

(2018). State-of-the-arts article: Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51, 285–329.

40.

MacIntyre

P.D.

(2016). So far so good: An overview of positive psychology and its contribution to SLA. In Gabryś-Barker

Gałajda

(Eds.), Positive psychology perspectives on foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 3–20). New York: Springer.

41.

MacIntyre

P.D.

Legatto

J.J.

(2011). A dynamic system approach to willingness to communicate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing affect. Applied Linguistics, 32, 149–171.

42.

MacIntyre

P.D.

Baker

S.C.

Clément

Conrod

(2001). Willingness to communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369–388.

43.

MacIntyre

P.D.

Dörnyei

Clément

Noels

K.A.

(1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.

44.

Marsden

Morgan-Short

Trofimovich

Ellis

N.C.

(2018). Introducing registered reports at Language Learning: Promoting transparency, replication, and a synthetic ethic in the language sciences. Language Learning, 68, 309–320.

45.

Matsumoto

(2015). Motivational changes and their affecting factors among students from different cultural backgrounds. In Chan

W.M.

Bhatt

S.K.

Nagami

Walker

(Eds.), Culture and foreign language education: Insights from research and implications for the practice (pp. 223–244). Boston, MA: de Gruyter.

46.

McCarthy

McCarten

Sandiford

(2008). Touchstone 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

47.

Melchers

Shaw

(2013). World Englishes. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.

48.

Morgan-Short

Heil

Botero-Moriarty

Ebert

(2012). Allocation of attention to second language form and meaning: Issues of think-alouds and depth of processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 659–685.

49.

Morgan-Short

Marsden

Heil

, et al. (2018). Multisite replication in second language acquisition research: Attention to form during listening and reading comprehension. Language Learning, 68, 392–437.

50.

Murray

(2013). Higher education constraints on innovation. In Hyland

Wong

L.L.

(Eds.), Innovation and change in English language education (pp. 186–200). New York: Routledge.

51.

O’Connor

B.P.

(2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 396–402.

52.

Open Science Collaboration (OSC). (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, aac4716.

53.

Papi

Teimouri

(2014). Language learner motivational types: A cluster analysis study. Language Learning, 64, 493–525.

54.

Philp

Adams

Iwashita

(2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York: Routledge.

55.

Philp

Duchesne

(2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72.

56.

Plonsky

Oswald

F.L.

(2017). Multiple regression as a flexible alternative to ANOVA in L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 579–592.

57.

Poupore

(2016). Measuring group work dynamics and its relation with L2 learners’ task motivation and language production. Language Teaching Research, 20, 719–740.

58.

Poupore

(2018). A complex systems investigation of group work dynamics in L2 interactive tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 350–370.

59.

Qiu

Y.Y.

(2017). Content familiarity, task repetition and Chinese EFL learners’ engagement in second language use. Language Teaching Research, 21, 681–698.

60.

Ranta

Meckelborg

(2013). How much exposure to English do international graduate students really get? Measuring language use in a naturalistic setting. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69, 1–33.

61.

Richards

J.C.

Rodgers

T.S.

(2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. 3rd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

62.

Sato

(2011). Constitution of form-orientation: Contributions of context and explicit knowledge to learning from recasts. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 1–28.

63.

Sato

(2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 611–633.

64.

Sato

(2017). Interaction mindsets, interactional behaviors, and L2 development: An affective-social-cognitiv model. Language Learning, 67, 249–283.

65.

Sato

(2020). Metacognitive instruction for collaborative interaction: The process and product of self-regulated learning in the Chilean EFL context. In Lambert

Oliver

(Eds.), Using tasks in second language teaching: Practice in diverse contexts (pp. 215–236). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

66.

Sato

Ballinger

(2016). Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. In Sato

Ballinger

(Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

67.

Sato

Loewen

(2019a). Towards evidence-based second language pedagogy: Research proposal and pedagogical recommendations. In Sato

Loewen

(Eds.), Evidence-based second language pedagogy: A collection of Instructed Second Language Acquisition studies (pp. 1–24). Abingdon: Routledge.

68.

Sato

Loewen

(2019b). Methodological strengths, challenges, and joys of classroom-based quasi-experimental research: Metacognitive instruction and corrective feedback. In DeKeyser

Botana Prieto

(Eds.), Doing SLA research with implications for the classroom: Reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability (pp. 31–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

69.

Sato

Lyster

(2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 591–262.

70.

Sato

Viveros

(2016). Interaction or collaboration? Group dynamics in the foreign language classroom. In Sato

Ballinger

(Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 91–112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

71.

Schweinsberg

Madan

Vianello

, et al. (2016). The pipeline project: Pre-publication independent replications of a single laboratory's research pipeline. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 55–67.

72.

Sheen

(2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263–300.

73.

Simard

Jean

(2011). An exploration of L2 teachers’ use of pedagogical interventions devised to draw L2 learners’ attention to form. Language Learning, 61, 759–785.

74.

Storch

(2004). Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interactions in an ESL class. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 457–480.

75.

Storch

(2009). The nature of pair interaction: Learners’ interaction in an ESL class: its nature and impact on grammatical development. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.

76.

Storch

(2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

77.

Storch

Sato

(2019). Comparing the same task in different L2 learning contexts: An Activity Theory perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30, 50–69.

78.

Stroebe

Strack

(2014). The alleged crisis and the illusion of exact replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 59–71.

79.

Swain

Lapkin

(1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.

80.

Tabachnick

B.G.

Fidell

L.S.

(2016). Using multivariate statistics. 6th edition. Boston, MA: Pearson.

81.

Taguchi

Magid

Papi

(2009). The L2 motivational self system among Japanese, Chinese and Iranian learners of English: A comparative study. In Dörnyei

Ushioda

(Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 66–97). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

82.

Van Bavel

J.J.

Mende-Siedlecki

Brady

W.J.

Reinero

D.A.

(2016). Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 6454–6459.

83.

Widdowson

H.G.

(1997). EIL, ESL, EFL: Global issues and local interests. World Englishes, 16, 135–146.

84.

Williams

(1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583–625.

85.

Yashima

MacIntyre

P.D.

Ikeda

(2018). Situated willingness to communicate in an L2: Interplay of individual characteristics and context. Language Teaching Research, 22, 115–137.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.23 MB