Differences in interaction strategy use between L1 and L2 group discussions of primary school students

被引:1
作者
Zhu, Xinhua [1 ]
Zhao, Pengfei [2 ]
Sun, Yiwen [1 ]
Huang, Shuming [1 ]
Cheong, Choo Mui [3 ]
Liao, Xian [2 ]
机构
[1] Hong Kong Polytech Univ, Dept Chinese & Bilingual Studies, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[2] Educ Univ Hong Kong, Dept Chinese Language Studies, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[3] Univ Hong Kong, Fac Educ, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
关键词
group discussion; interaction strategy use; L1; Cantonese; L2; Putonghua; primary school students; COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES; ORAL COMMUNICATION; LANGUAGE; ENGLISH; NEGOTIATION; PERFORMANCE; CLASSROOM; ATTITUDES; FOREIGN;
D O I
10.1111/ijal.12597
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Students' development of multilingual competence has attracted increasing attention from language researchers and educators. However, research on students' interaction strategy use in group discussions across different language settings remains scarce. In this study, therefore, we examined interaction strategy use in Cantonese as a first language (L1) and Putonghua as a second language (L2) during group discussion tasks among 42 primary school students in Hong Kong. We also investigated the effects of interaction strategy use on performance in respective tasks. We discovered that students employed significantly more interaction strategies in L1 than in L2, with a higher contribution to L1 task performance. Specifically, three of the five strategies identified-Strategy 2 (S2) asking for opinions, S3 expressing attitude, and S5 non-verbal language-were employed more frequently in L1 than in L2. Furthermore, we found that strategy use had various effects on oral performance between the two languages. In the L1 task, S1 expressing actively, S3 expressing attitude, and S4 giving clarification significantly predicted students' group discussion performance, whereas this effect was only observed in S1 expressing actively in the L2 task. Pedagogical implications for primary students' learning of interaction strategies for group discussions in both L1 and L2 are discussed.
引用
收藏
页码:21 / 41
页数:21
相关论文
共 50 条
[21]   Teachers' self-reported L1 and L2 use and self-assessed L2 proficiency in primary EFL education [J].
Wilden, Eva ;
Porsch, Raphaela .
STUDIES IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING, 2020, 10 (03) :631-655
[22]   How strategic use of L1 in an L2-medium mathematics classroom facilitates L2 interaction and comprehension [J].
Tavares, Nicole Judith .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM, 2015, 18 (03) :319-335
[23]   Planning to speak in L1 and L2 [J].
Konopka, Agnieszka E. ;
Meyer, Antje ;
Forest, Tess A. .
COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, 2018, 102 :72-104
[24]   Identification and evaluation of L1 and L2 Chinese accents [J].
Yang, Chunsheng ;
Luo, Han ;
Jin, Wenhua .
CHINESE LANGUAGE AND DISCOURSE, 2025,
[25]   AN INTERCULTURAL STYLE: SERBIAN L1 AND ENGLISH L2 INTERACTION IN REQUESTS [J].
Dimitrijevic-Savic, Jovana ;
Dimitrijevic, Marta .
NASLEDE, 2010, 7 (15) :27-45
[26]   Feature reassembly and L1 preemption: Acquiring CLLD in L2 Italian and L2 Romanian [J].
Smeets, Liz .
SECOND LANGUAGE RESEARCH, 2024, 40 (03) :559-589
[27]   The effects of L1 and L2 writers' varying politeness modification in English emails on L1 and L2 readers [J].
Hendriks, Berna ;
van Meurs, Frank ;
Kakisina, Bob .
JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS, 2023, 204 :33-49
[28]   Word Reading in L1 and L2 Learners of Chinese: Similarities and Differences in the Functioning of Component Processes [J].
Zhang, Dongbo .
MODERN LANGUAGE JOURNAL, 2017, 101 (02) :391-411
[29]   Exploring relationships between L1 and L2 writing strategy use and integrated writing performance: A cross-linguistic perspective [J].
Zhu, Xinhua ;
Yao, Yuan ;
Liao, Xian ;
Xu, Wandong ;
Zhao, Pengfei ;
Jiang, Yue .
IRAL-INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS IN LANGUAGE TEACHING, 2024,
[30]   Exploring the Relationship Among L1 writing, L2 writing, and L2 Linguistic Proficiency Depending on L2 Topic Difficulty [J].
Lee, Hee-Kyung .
ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER, 2012, 21 (03) :576-586