System 52 (2015) 26e37

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Triads in the L2 classroom: Interaction patterns and

engagement during a collaborative task
Anne Edstrom
Department of Spanish and Italian, Montclair State University, 1 Normal Avenue, Conrad Schmitt Hall 205G, Montclair, NJ 07043, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Communication is a primary goal of most second and foreign language classes, and
Received 22 July 2014 teachers frequently implement group work to maximize opportunities for interaction.
Received in revised form 31 March 2015 Previous research has investigated the communicative exchanges between paired learners
Accepted 17 April 2015
during collaborative tasks, but few studies have examined interactions among learners in
Available online 22 May 2015
triads. The present study explores this context, focusing specifically on the distribution of
participation among learners, the frequency and nature of the LREs they produce, and the
Keywords:
patterns of interaction that characterize triadic exchanges. This descriptive investigation
Interaction patterns
Engagement
documents the nature of learners' interactions rather than attempts to establish a link
Collaborative writing between their performance and learning. The findings offer no evidence to indicate that
triads are superior or inferior but do affirm the importance of true collaboration in group
interaction. Also interesting are these participants' almost exclusive use of their first lan-
guage in carrying out the task. The results showcase the challenging realities of the lan-
guage classroom and highlight several pedagogical implications.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) identifies interaction as a key component of the language acquisition process,
thereby establishing the importance of collaborative work in foreign language (FL) and second language (L2) classes. The use
of pair and group work is particularly common in classes focused on the development of communicative competence and the
ability to use the L2 in the real world.
The value of collaborative work has been documented in previous research, most often in studies focused on interaction in
dyads. Researchers have analyzed a variety of issues such as the nature of collaboration (Storch, 2001) and focus on form in
pair tasks (Philp, Walter, & Basturkmen, 2010). They have also considered the effect of corrective feedback (Yoshida, 2008),
the role of the L1 (Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2009; Scott & De la Fuente, 2008; Thoms, Liao, & Szustak, 2005), the
effect of matching learners of higher and lower proficiency levels (Kim & McDonough, 2008; Leeser, 2004; Watanabe &
Swain, 2007, 2008), and the grammatical accuracy of work produced by students individually and in pairs (Baleghizadeh
& Rahimi, 2011; Storch, 1999, 2007; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009).
Nevertheless, certain tasks, such as the one highlighted in the present analysis, lend themselves specifically to triads, and
few studies (Ferna ndez Dobao, 2014, 2012; Lasito & Storch, 2013; Shehadeh, 2004) have examined the possible influence of
group size on the nature and effectiveness of collaboration. The addition of a third learner inevitably alters the interaction
patterns of pair work, and its influence on other aspects of collaboration is relatively unexplored. The present study seeks to

E-mail address: edstroma@mail.montclair.edu.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.04.014
0346-251X/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A. Edstrom / System 52 (2015) 26e37 27

address those current gaps in existing research. This analysis is descriptive and exploratory; rather than relate students'
interactions directly to their acquisition of Spanish, it examines engagement and interaction patterns in triads during a
collaborative task and considers the implications for pedagogy.

2. Previous research

This study is grounded in sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and its conceptualization of learning as a social process that
occurs during interaction with an expert, a teacher or peer. Language is a mediating tool and the basis of what Swain (2006)
calls languaging, “the process of making meaning and shaping knowledge and experience through language” (p. 98). Ver-
balization of knowledge, whether whispering to oneself or dialogging with others, can facilitate problem solving and task
completion. When teachers assign collaborative tasks within the Zone of Proximal Development (the region between what
learners are able to do independently and with support), learners build on each other's contributions and, through collective
scaffolding, are often able to create a product that is beyond their individual abilities. In the process they expand “their own L2
knowledge and extend the linguistic development of their peers” (Donato, 1994, p. 52). Some research (Seo & Kim, 2011; Storch
& Aldosari, 2013; Watanabe, 2008) suggests that even less proficient learners can provide support for more proficient peers
and that the interaction patterns employed in pair work are more important than participants' actual proficiency levels.
Storch (2002) identified several interaction patterns, which were later expanded by Tan, Wigglesworth, and Storch (2010)
and Watanabe and Swain (2007), that characterize learners' approach to paired writing tasks: (1) collaborative; (2) dominant/
passive; (3) novice/expert; (4) dominant/dominant; (5) cooperative; and (6) expert/passive. In collaborative interactions,
partners contribute significantly to the task and build off of one another's ideas. However, in pairs characterized by a
dominant/passive pattern one learner takes control of the task, and the other does not engage. A third pattern, expert/novice,
describes interactions in which learners have unequal influence over its direction, but rather than dominate, the more
advanced learner encourages the novice partner to participate. A dominant/dominant pattern emerges when both participants
contribute to the task, but their efforts to control it, rather than engage with one another, result in frequent disagreement. In
cooperative interactions participants both take control of the task but cooperate by working equally and independently, and
the final product is a compilation of their individually prepared contributions, not a jointly drafted text. Watanabe and Swain
(2007) identified one additional combination: expert/passive in which the “expert” member seeks to involve the less profi-
cient partner, but the latter remains reluctant to participate and adopts a passive stance.
Certain interaction patterns are more productive than others. Storch (2002) noted more evidence of knowledge transfer
between learners in interactions characterized by collaborative and expert/novice patterns than in dominant/dominant or
dominant/passive roles. Watanabe and Swain also (2007) affirmed the superiority of the collaborative model for facilitating
learning, and in their study of collaborative wikis Li and Zhu (2013) indicated that students in a “collectively contributing/
mutually supportive” (p. 77) group reported a more positive perception of the experience than those in less cooperative
groups.
L1 use can be common in these interactions, and sociocultural theory is somewhat unique in viewing learners' first
language use as a cognitive tool that supports the learning process rather than as an indication of linguistic deficiency (Anto n
& DiCamilla, 1998; Brooks & Donato, 1994). Indeed, in recent years researchers and practitioners have debated what, if any,
role the L1 should have in language classes. Given the importance of target language exposure, many have argued for maximal
L2 use (Cook, 2001; Turnbull, 2001). Duff and Polio (1990), for instance, concluded their study of teachers' L1 use with
suggested techniques for maximizing the L2 in the classroom and in a subsequent study referred to future research that might
help teachers avoid English (Polio & Duff, 1994).
Now, however, as Turnbull and Dailey-O'Cain (2009) note, it is argued that codeswitching, use of both the L1 and L2, is
natural for bilinguals, whether they be proficient or aspiring (p.1). From this perspective language learners are not “deficient
L2 communicators” but rather multicompetent users of both languages (Belz, 2002, p. 64) who may not wish to integrate into
the target language community and emulate the monolingual native speaker norm (Cook, 2007). Even if learners want to use
the L2 exclusively, they may find it difficult. DiCamilla and Anto n's (2012) recent study, for instance, compared language use
by beginning and advanced learners and reported frequent L1 use by beginners in collaborative tasks.
Collaborative work that is characterized by effective interaction patterns facilitates languaging. Language related episodes
(LRE) are one example of languaging that has been studied extensively. Swain and Lapkin (1995) defined LREs as instances
when “a learner either spoke about a language problem he/she encountered while writing … or simply solved it without
having explicitly identified it as a problem” (p. 178). This construct has provided a framework for analyzing collaboration
among language learners on quizzes (Ewald, 2005) and oral tasks such as role play or discussion (Philp et al., 2010) but most
often collaborative writing (Kim & McDonough, 2008; Leeser, 2004; Nassaji & Tian, 2010; Seo & Kim, 2011; Storch, 2007;
Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009). LREs serve as an overt indication that at a given moment students are focusing on form
(grammar, lexicon, mechanics, or discourse) (Fortune & Thorp, 2001; Loewen & Basturkmen, 2005), thereby establishing
what may be a definitive connection with learning (Swain & Lapkin, 1998). Swain and Lapkin (1998) analyzed collaboration
between two French immersion students who worked together to write the narrative portrayed in a series of images. The
authors noted that the learners' LREs provided “evidence of language use as both an enactment of mental processes and as an
occasion for L2 learning” (p. 320).
Fernandez Dobao (2012) investigated the relationship between LREs and group size. Comparing the results of a collab-
orative task carried out individually, in dyads, and in groups of four, she reported several results of statistical significance, two
28 A. Edstrom / System 52 (2015) 26e37

of which will be highlighted here: first, learners in groups produced more LREs than learners in pairs and, second, in groups,
they resolved a higher percentage of those LREs correctly. The findings of her 2014 study affirmed that LRE resolution in small
groups was more accurate and characterized by more elaborate engagement.
Determining the degree to which students participate during collaborative work is challenging. Time on-task, that is,
“engaged in the pedagogic work of the day” (Nunan, 1992, p. 37), is one possible measure. However, even those learners who
are on-task focus to varying degrees on the linguistic input in a given activity. Previous research (Kuiken & Vedder, 2002;
Leow, 1997; Qi & Lapkin, 2001) suggests that elaborate or substantive, in contrast to simple or perfunctory, noticing sup-
ports language acquisition. Leow (1997) used a think aloud protocol as well as pre and post testing to evaluate the effect of
noticing on learners' processing of irregular stem changes in past tense Spanish verbs. He concluded that “more awareness
contributes to more recognition and accurate written production of noticed forms by enhancing further processing of these
forms in the L2 data” (p. 495). Qi and Lapkin (2001) also found that noticing may help L2 learners improve their writing but
emphasized that the quality of noticing was crucial.
Storch (2008) applied this distinction to the context of collaborative writing and distinguished “limited engagement” in
which learners merely identify the needed form from “elaborate engagement” in which there is accompanying discussion or
deliberation. Furthermore, she distinguished LREs in which both partners noticed and participated, however minimally, from
instances in which one learner made a suggestion or resolved the LRE but the other either responded with a phatic expression
(okay, mmhm) or did not respond at all. Storch (2008) found that “elaborate engagement, where learners deliberated over
alternatives, questioned and explained their suggestions, led to consolidation/learning, more so than limited engagement” (p.
110).
The present study builds on the findings of previous research. In contrast with the dictogloss and text reconstruction tasks
used in other studies of collaborative writing, the present task, a role play script, is somewhat unique; it is a written text
created for the purpose of oral performance. Script writing requires that learners use L2 vocabulary and grammar to draft
dialog instead of prose and to capture the informalities of authentic speech rather than focus on the structure and mechanics
of an essay. Most importantly, this study analyzes the underexplored context of collaborative work in triads and investigates
the following research questions:

1. How is participation distributed among learners of Spanish as a foreign language while drafting a written script in a triad?
2. To what extent do these language learners engage in LREs while collaboratively drafting a written script in triads?
3. What patterns of interaction characterize triadic group work during this task?

3. Participants

Participants are 21 students (7 males, 14 females) from three sections of a third semester Spanish course at a mid-sized
public university in the United States. Most students had enrolled to fulfill the university's foreign language requirement
and had either placed directly into this class because of previous coursework in high school or were following the university
sequence and had just completed first-year Spanish.

4. Methods

The data come from learners' conversations while they drafted a role play script during class. Students independently
formed groups of three and were asked to imagine themselves in a hospital in the Dominican Republic after suffering an
accident or becoming ill while on vacation (Appendix). They each chose one of three roles: doctor, patient, and friend who
accompanied the patient to the emergency room.
There were two stages of data collection. First, each triad audio-recorded their conversation while preparing the written
role play script. Second, each triad audio-recorded an oral performance of their role play. The oral performance, the actual role
plays, are not included in this analysis.
The time students were given to complete the task varied from one section to another, but most spent
20e24 minutes collaborating (Table 1). Students were not given instructions with regard to L1/L2 use, and they all used
English for almost the entire drafting phase of the task.

Table 1
Learner word count.

Triad Preparation time (min.: sec.) Total number of words Learner A Learner B Learner C
1 12:05 1580 703 (44%) 690 (44%) 187 (12%)
2 16:51 1451 410 (28%) 527 (36%) 514 (35%)
3 23:30 2247 884 (39%) 963 (43%) 400 (18%)
4 21:05 1594 992 (62%) 377 (24%) 225 (14%)
5 21:20 2668 1218 (45%) 337 (13%) 1113 (42%)
6 23:54 3120 1547 (50%) 968 (31%) 605 (19%)
7 23:52 2355 795 (34%) 1299 (55%) 261 (11%)
 A. Edstrom / System 52 (2015) 26e37 29

The data collection environment was more natural than experimental, and preserving typical classroom patterns was a
priority; consequently, students were not prohibited from consulting the teacher. Her response to their questions, which were
primarily about vocabulary and grammar, was sometimes direct, but in other cases she engaged in collective scaffolding that
helped learners find their own answers. Tables 3 and 6 document her participation, a factor that must be acknowledged when
analyzing the accuracy of LRE resolution.
The recordings of students' conversations while drafting were transcribed, and the data were analyzed both quantitatively
and qualitatively. First, a simple word count documented each group member's participation in the task. To address the
second research question, all LREs were identified and coded as resolved “correctly” or “incorrectly” and as “elaborate,” to
represent the resolution of an LRE through discussion or deliberation among group members, or as “limited” in cases when
learners simply stated the answer. Also indicated were how many group members participated in the interaction. Consider
the examples below. The first highlights an LRE coded as being resolved correctly through limited engagement and the second
resolved incorrectly through elaborate engagement:

Triad 2 (Correct resolution/Limited engagement)

A: What's picadura mean?
C: Ah, sting, I think.
Triad 4 (Incorrect resolution/Elaborate engagement)
A: so, tien, or tengo [I have], when we're asking, what do we say?
B: is it tengo o…
C: it would be asking you so
B: tengas [you have (subjunctive)]
A: she's asking you
C: so tengas

This coding process included a co-rater. The researcher and co-rater worked through one transcript together to identify
LREs. Following the pattern they established, the researcher identified all LREs in the remaining 6 transcripts. At a second
meeting the co-rater confirmed the labeling of LREs, and they independently coded each LRE for the features previously
indicated. Inter-rater reliability was 93% for the resolution of the LRE, 91% for elaborate or limited engagement, and 94% for
the number of participants involved.
The third research question was addressed through qualitative analysis. After multiple readings of the transcripts, the
researcher evaluated each triad according to the characteristics of the following interaction patterns that were identified in
previous research: collaborative, dominant/passive, novice/expert, dominant/dominant, cooperative and expert/passive
(Storch, 2002; Tan et al., 2010; Watanabe & Swain, 2007).

5. Results and discussion

5.1. Distribution of participation

When considering the nature of group work in triads as opposed to dyads, one key factor is learners' participation, defined
in the present study as their involvement in and contribution to class activities. Though one can participate by listening, this
study focuses on speaking. Some researchers have found that learners have more opportunities for individual participation
(Fernandez Dobao, 2012; Peacock, 1998) or modified output in pairs than in larger groups (Shehadeh, 2004). Though a word
count does not give a complete picture of participation and provides no information about its depth or quality, it gives an
overview of the distribution of conversational space and thereby informs the interpretation of interactional patterns. See
Table 1:
The total number of words ranges from 1451 to 3120 and, to a large extent, reflects the time each group spent in prep-
aration. The data can be categorized in four ways: (1) similar word counts among all three members (Triad 2); (2) variation in
word count among all three members (Triads 6 and 7); (3) similarly high participation by two learners and considerably less
by the third (Triads 1, 3 and 5); and, (4) similarly low participation by two learners and considerably more by the third (Triad
4). These data will be revisited later in the description of interaction patterns.

5.2. Learner involvement in LREs

LREs provide a context for analyzing learners' participation at a more meaningful level. A total of 108 LREs surfaced in the
data. Their distribution, ranging from 5 to 27, varied from one triad to another. (Triad 1 produced a low number of LREs
because they copied a significant portion of material from the textbook.) Also important when assessing learners' partici-
pation in triads is the number of LREs in which each member participated. See Table 2:
Overall, the number of LREs in which each learner participated was evenly distributed in Triads 1, 2, 4, and 6. In the case of
Triads 3 and 7 two members participated equally, or almost equally, and the third contributed considerably more or less. In
Triad 5 learners participated in varying degrees. Excluding Triad 1 whose performance was affected by copying from the
30 A. Edstrom / System 52 (2015) 26e37

Table 2
Number of LREs in which each learner participated.

Triad Total LRE participation by learner

LREs
Learner Learner Learner
A B C
1 5 5 5 3
2 12 9 9 11
3 14 14 12 5
4 21 21 16 17
5 10 8 5 10
6 27 24 23 25
7 19 19 19 10

textbook, the groups whose participation was most equally distributed in the resolution of LREs (Triads 2, 4, and 6) interacted
collaboratively, as will be shown later.
Table 2 presents participation in terms of each group member's individual involvement. In contrast, Table 3 highlights LREs
as the focal point; that is, it summarizes the number of triad members that engaged in deliberation during each LRE. Also
noted is the teacher's involvement:

Table 3
Distribution of learner participation in LREs.

Triad Total 1 2 3 Teacher involvement

LREs Learner Learners Learners
1 5 0 (0%) 2 (40%) 3 (60%) 4 (80%)
2 12 2 (17%) 3 (25%) 7 (58%) 3 (25%)
3 14 0 (0%) 11 (79%) 3 (21%) 6 (43%)
4 21 0 (0%) 9 (43%) 12 (57%) 3 (13%)
5 10 1 (10%) 5 (50%) 4 (40%) 3 (30%)
6 27 1 (4%) 6 (22%) 20 (74%) 4 (15%)
7 19 0 (0%) 9 (47%) 10 (53%) 0 (0%)
TOTAL 108 3 (4%) 41 (38%) 64 (58%) 20 (17%)

The majority (64 or 58%) of these LREs were resolved by interactions in which all group members participated, particularly
in Triads 2, 4, 6, and 7 (58%, 57%, 74%, and 53%, respectively). Triad 1 had a high rate of participation by all three members
(60%), though as we will see later, Learner B and C's contributions did not advance the task, and their interactions were largely
unproductive. Triad 1 was also characterized by excessive interaction with the teacher; that is, they involved the teacher in
resolving 4 of their 5 LREs. Her involvement was also extensive (30% of LREs or more) in Triads 3, and 5. Interestingly, the four
triads that produced the largest number of LREs (Triads 2, 4, 6, and 7) involved the teacher the least. They also worked
frequently as a threesome.
Finally, the nature (elaborate vs. limited and correctly vs. incorrectly resolved) of these LREs is also a relevant factor when
evaluating learners' engagement. Following, Storch (2008), all LREs were coded as elaborate (E) or limited (L). Also noted was
whether each LRE was resolved correctly or incorrectly. This information, the nature of learner engagement in LREs and the
accuracy of their resolution, is summarized in Table 4.

Table 4
Summary of LREs: engagement and resolution.

Level of engagement Correctly resolved Incorrectly resolved Totals

E (3 learners) 29 23 52
E (2 learners) 17 8 25
E (1 learner) 1 1
Subtotal (Elaborate) 47 31 78 (72%)
L (3 learners) 5 2 7
L (2 learners) 15 5 20
L (1 learner) 3 0 3
Subtotal (Limited) 23 7 30 (28%)
Total (% of total) 70 (65%) 38 (35%) 108

Given that previous research indicates a positive relationship between elaborate engagement and learner performance
(Leow, 1997; Qi & Lapkin, 2001; Storch, 2008), it is encouraging that most of these LREs (65%) were resolved correctly and
were characterized by elaborate (72%), rather than limited, involvement. Of those LREs categorized as elaborate, the majority
(52 of 78 or 67%) involved three learners. The presence of three versus two learners apparently made little difference in the
accuracy of resolution; that is, elaborate engagement among three learners produced 29 correct responses of 52 (56%
 A. Edstrom / System 52 (2015) 26e37 31

accuracy) and elaborate engagement between two learners produced 17 correct responses of 25 (68% accuracy). The LREs
characterized by limited engagement exhibited a similar pattern though they indicated a slightly higher performance for
pairs than triads; deliberations involving two learners produced 15 correct responses of 20 (75% accuracy), and discussions
involving three learners produced 5 correct responses of 7 (71% accuracy). Interestingly, for these learners elaborate
engagement produced less accurate results (47 of 78 or 60% accuracy) than limited engagement (23 of 30 or 77% accuracy). In
short, the effectiveness of deliberation seemed reflective of learners' individual linguistic resources (grammatical and lexical
knowledge, ability to paraphrase) and their collective ability to generate material with those building blocks.
These findings differ from those of Fernandez Dobao (2014, 2012) who reported a higher percentage of correctly resolved
LREs for learners in small groups than in pairs. The results are not truly comparable, however, because the present data refer
to the participation of two or three members within a triad rather than a comparison of dyads and triads completing the same
task.
Table 5 compares elaborate and limited engagement in LREs.

Table 5
Summary of LRE engagement.

Triad Total LREs Elaborate Limited

1 5 4 (80%) 1 (10%)
2 12 10 (83%) 2 (17%)
3 14 9 (64%) 5 (36%)
4 21 14 (67%) 7 (33%)
5 10 6 (60%) 4 (40%)
6 27 22 (81%) 5 (19%)
7 19 13 (68%) 6 (32%)
Total 108 78 (72%) 30 (28%)

Once again, Triads 2, 4, 6 and 7 outperformed the others (with the exception of Triad 1) in regard to the frequency of
elaborate engagement.
Finally, in light of the interaction patterns that will be analyzed in the next section, it is necessary to revisit the notion of
accuracy. The teacher involvement data is included again here for convenience. See Table 6:

Table 6
Accuracy of LRE resolution.

Triad Total LREs Resolved correctly Resolved incorrectly Teacher involvement

1 5 5 (100%) 0 (0%) 4 (80%)
2 12 10 (83%) 2 (17%) 3 (25%)
3 14 9 (64%) 5 (36%) 5 (43%)
4 21 13 (62%) 8 (38%) 3 (13%)
5 10 8 (80%) 2 (2%) 3 (30%)
6 27 11 (41%) 16 (59%) 4 (15%)
7 19 14 (74%) 5 (26%) 0 (0%)

Extensive teacher involvement in Triads 1, 3, and 5, as reported in Table 3, may explain the high accuracy with which those
groups resolved LREs. Triad 7's 74% accuracy rate is particularly notable given that they received no teacher assistance. Most
problematic is the relatively low accuracy rate of Triad 6 (41%). They received minimal help from the teacher, produced the
largest number of LREs, and exhibited elaborate engagement in 22 of the 27 cases but resolved the majority incorrectly.
The data reported in this section on the distribution of participation within the triads as well as the nature and accuracy of
LREs provide quantitative information about each group's collaboration. In summary, Triads 2, 4, 6, and 7 produced the
highest number of LREs, had the least teacher involvement in LRE resolution, resolved the most LREs as a threesome (except
Triad 1), and exhibited the highest rates of elaborate engagement (except Triad 1). With the exception of Triad 1, Triads 2, 4
and 7 also had the highest percentages of correct LRE resolution. Special attention will be paid to these groups in the following
section that examines triadic collaboration from a communicative perspective and provides a qualitative analysis of learners'
interaction patterns.

5.3. Patterns of interaction

These 7 triads exhibited interaction patterns similar to those established for pairs by Storch (2002). The findings are
summarized in Table 7:

5.3.1. Collaborative
Triads 2, 4, 6 and 7 exhibited Storch's (2002) collaborative interaction pattern, the only difference being the presence of
three group members rather than two. Specific features associated with this pattern include positive and negative peer
32 A. Edstrom / System 52 (2015) 26e37

Table 7
Triadic interaction patterns.

Triad Interaction Patterns

1 Dominant/passive/off-task
2 Collaborative
3 Dominant/dominant/dominant
4 Collaborative
5 Collaborative/collaborative/novice
6 Collaborative
7 Collaborative

feedback, repetition and completion of each other's utterances, and the exchange of questions and answers. Consider the
following example as participants discuss how to say “she likes attention” in Spanish:

Example 1 (Triad 6)
1 Julia: How do you say “attention”?
2 Cali: Atencio n
3 Emma: Atencio n
4 Julia: So ella gusta [she likes]
5 Emma: Um, it would be se gusta [(reflexive object pronoun) likes], right?
6 Cali: Yeah
7 Emma: Se gusta atencio n [(reflexive object pronoun) likes attention]
8 Cali: Or is it, I think it might be le gusta [(indirect object pronoun) likes]
9 Emma: Ok
10 Julia: It might be le gusta [she likes], it is le gusta [she likes]
11 Cali: Alright.

All three members contributed to the correct resolution of the LRE. They repeated each other's utterances, asked and
answered questions, and entertained suggestions while exploring alternatives. This collective scaffolding enabled them to
arrive at an answer that none of them appeared initially to recognize independently. Though she did not use grammatical
terminology, Emma correctly noted that the verb “to like” in Spanish requires two parts (line 5). Cali changed “se” to “le” (line
8), and Julia provided final confirmation (line 10).
Collaborative interaction patterns, however, are not synonymous with equal participation. Though learners' participation
in terms of quantity was fairly equal in Example 1, their overall word count was not. The data from Table 1 indicate a difference
among the collaborative Triads (2, 4, 6, and 7). All three participants in Triad 2 contributed very similarly; in contrast, one
learner in Triads 4, 6 and 7 acted as group leader, taking more initiative and occupying more conversational space than the
others.
Indeed, when considering interaction patterns, both the quantity and quality of participants' contributions come into play;
that is, some members engaged in the resolution of more LREs than others, but communicative style is also a factor. Consider,
for instance, Triad 7. Though Learner C's contribution is limited in terms of quantity (Table 2), he was not passive. He was on-
task throughout the entire activity and engaged with his classmates' ideas by providing confirmation, making corrections, and
offering alternatives, actions that Storch (2002) characterizes as collaborative. Thus, the nature of Learner C's participation
was collaborative; he contributed to the group by helping resolve 10 of 19 LREs but also by creating space for his peers'
initiatives to advance the task.
Differentiating roles in group work is not inconsistent with collaboration and, in fact, is often recommended (Smith, 2000).
Loewen and Basturkmen (2005) described three roles that surfaced in groups during a collaborative writing task: one learner
did more advising, another made more corrections, and another asked more questions. In the present data a definite leader
emerged in Triads 4, 6 and 7. These individuals did not dominate the interaction or adopt a teacher-like role but did exercise
leadership in several ways. For instance, they provided the initial momentum for the task; they initiated a discussion to assign
roles (“Do you want me to be the friend? Do you want to be the doctor? It doesn't matter.”) and to begin the task (“Ok, so what
should we say happened to ourselves?”). They also brought closure to segments of the discussion (“Yeah, we'll ask her when
she comes back”) and advanced the conversation (“Alright, let's ignore that and keep going”).
Of these four collaborative groups (Triads 2, 4, 6, and 7) three produced the largest number of LREs and, excluding Triad 1,
Triads 2 and 7 were among the groups that resolved the largest percentage of LREs correctly. These four triads produced the
highest number of elaborate LREs, and Table 3 indicates that learners in these triads engaged as a threesome very frequently.

5.3.2. Dominant/passive/off-task
Triad 1 exhibited a pattern similar to Storch's (2002) dominant/passive role with the addition of a largely off-task third
member. Bill, the dominant member of this group, was mild mannered but began writing the script on his own while the
teacher was still giving instructions. The second member, Dave, was passive; his contributions were minimal and did not
 A. Edstrom / System 52 (2015) 26e37 33

advance the task. He also engaged in off-task banter with Joe, who adopted the role of jokester. In Example 4, Bill recapped
their discussion and shared ideas, including his pre-drafted script:

Example 4 (Triad 1)
1 Bill: So you're going to be [the friend], he's going to be [the patient],
2 I'm going to be [the patient].
3 Joe: You can be the doctor. You'll quote Shakespeare and stuff like
4 that. How'd ya like that?
5 Dave: No [laughs]
6 Bill: So, this is what I got so far. This seems like it's more like for a
7 nurse, and I also have it just as sickness, not as
8 Dave: Mucho duelo [much I hurt]
9 Joe: It's like Willy's [character's name] really sick
10 Dave: Mucho duelo [much I hurt]
11 Bill: Well cuz look, cuz then it says “me siento muy mal” [“I feel very
12 bad”]. I have to figure out “my eye itches” is what I want to say.

Bill's approach was more serious than that of his peers. He had already copied considerable dialog from the textbook (line 6)
and had specific ideas about what to include in the script (line 12). Though data on word count and LRE involvement (Learner
A on Tables 1 and 2) indicate substantial participation on Joe's part, his contributions are unproductive and distracting.
Consider Example 5 in which Bill was trying to determine how to say “don't give me a shot”:

Example 5 (Triad 1)
1 Bill: No me ponga [Don't give me]
2 Joe: Yeah, he was like choking the entire night. I couldn't sleep, so I
3 checked his fever. I'm like, man, you might be dying. I'm just like
4 grabbing needles everywhere. Let's give him that injection.
5 Bill: Maybe we'll say, have Dave interject.

Bill ignored Joe's tangential comments in order to move ahead with the task.
Other characteristics of Triad 1 reflect their lack of collaboration. The fact that they copied from the textbook influenced
the quantity of interaction among them. It presumably affected the nature of their interactions as well since, compared to
other triads, they did not brainstorm as much about content. They produced only 5 LREs, and the lack of peer support may be
what prompted Bill to consult the teacher to resolve 4 of them.
The dominant/passive/off-task pattern observed in this triad was unproductive. The excessive, obscure joking was a
distraction that Bill, the “worker” who took responsibility for the task, had to overlook. Though such behavior may occur in
pairs, it seems less likely; a passive partner may be off-task while the dominant member works, but persisting in joking or
distracting behavior is unlikely without an audience.

5.3.3. Dominant/dominant/dominant
The third interaction pattern corresponds to Storch's (2002) dominant/dominant pattern but is expanded to include a
third dominant member. Triad 3 exhibits numerous characteristics of this interaction style: members contribute but do not
engage well. There is much disagreement as well as frequent use of raised voices and first and second pronouns.
The first few minutes of Triad 3's interaction primarily involved Lynn and Drew while Jeff was off-task and temporarily
unengaged. Example 6 occurred as Jeff decided to participate and entered the conversation with an authoritative approach
that silenced Drew, who withdrew angrily. Drew had just offered an idea for the script, suggesting that the doctor ask the
patient what happened before the patient offered an explanation:

Example 6 (Triad 3)
1 Lynn: oh yeah, yeah, yeah he should
2 Drew: he hit me with a bat
3 Jeff: How do you say “pain”?
4 Lynn: Pain
5 Jeff: I'm hurting, I'm hurting. My cabeza [head] hurts.
6 Drew: Are you listening to us or are you doing your own
7 Jeff: Yeah, yeah, I'm doing it. It's how you said. Continue the freaking
8 oral presentation and then we'll finish, we'll reorganize everything.
9 So what, how do you say ah, cabe, how do you say my head hurts?
10 Drew: I don't know, you're doing your own thing right now
11 Jeff: What are you talking about?
12 Lynn: Can we not argue? Can we just, can we just figure out how to say
13 hurts?
14 Jeff: I'm not arguing, I'm just saying ….
34 A. Edstrom / System 52 (2015) 26e37

Jeff's abrupt hijacking of the task in which Drew had been actively engaged angered him, and, subsequent to this example, he
accused his classmate of being a “snob” and of “doing his own thing.” Jeff, whose conduct was bossy and rude, retorted, “You
didn't say a word after I started butting in.” Eventually, the teacher intervened when the tension reached a climax, and the
students exchanged accusations and curses.
Once again, it is important to note the distribution of participation (Table 1: Lynn ¼ 884 words, Jeff ¼ 963, and
Drew ¼ 400). Drew's limited participation, which might indicate a passive role, must be considered in light of his dominant
interaction style. When he did participate, he voiced frequent disagreement and made suggestions with insistence.
The LRE data further reflect the dominant nature of all three participants' interaction styles and the group's unpro-
ductiveness. They produced a total of 14 LREs: Lynn engaged in resolving 14 of them, Jeff in 12, and Drew only in 5. This triad
tended to split into pairs; first, Lynn with Drew and then Lynn with Jeff. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of LREs (79%), were
resolved by just two learners, and only 3 LREs involved the whole group. Triad 3 ranked 5th of the 7 groups in the accurate
resolution (64%) of LREs in spite of extensive teacher involvement. They were particularly poor at replacing advanced vo-
cabulary or grammatical structures with manageable ones. In fact, Lynn and Jeff had one exchange that lasted over
3 minutes during which they ineffectively revised their ideas multiple times without ever finding vocabulary that they knew
in Spanish.
This unpleasant, even hostile, environment is not characteristic of the dominant pairs described in other studies. Li and
Zhu (2013) noted a dominant/withdrawn pattern in which a participant disagrees with the others and withdraws from the
task. In this case, Drew's initial response was withdrawal, but his anger later resurfaced in a heated exchanged with Jeff.
Perhaps the combination of personalities, emotions, and circumstances was especially conflictive in this group. It is possible
that dominant styles become more problematic as the number of group members employing them increases.

5.3.4. Collaborative/collaborative/novice
Finally, Triad 5 was characterized by a combination of two of Storch's (2002) interaction patterns: collaborative and expert/
novice. The latter refers to experts who take responsibility for the task and encourages their peers to participate. In contrast
with the dominant/passive pattern, the expert leads, prods and teaches the novice. Two members of Triad 5 collaborated, and
the third, James, adopted the novice position by asking questions and treating his classmates as more knowledgeable than
himself. The two collaborating students made no effort to engage James but did help when he asked. In Example 7 Carl gave
James the incorrect pronunciation of the phrase “calm down” (line 4) and an unclear response to his question about
conjugating the command form of “to calm oneself down” (lines 10e11):

Example 7 (Triad 5)
1 James: How do you say “ca lmate” [calm down]?
2 Carl: Huh?
3 James: Calm down
4 Carl: Calma te [calm down, incorrect pronunciation]
5 James: ¿Calma te? [calm down, incorrect pronunciation]
6 Carl: C, a, l, m, a, [spelling aloud]. You have that?
7 James: Yeah
8 Carl: And then t, e
9 James: No r? Cuz it says “r” here. Calm, to calm.
10 Carl: But when you're like when you're, that's like the, um, present
11 tense, that's pretty much like after you conjugate it.
12 James: Alright.

James exhibited novice behaviors throughout the task. As they began, he indicated his preferred role: “the less talking,” the
better. Looking over the script as it developed, point he groaned at one point only to later complain, “How'm I going to say
that?! How *&%! am I going to say all that?” He then expressed concern about not being able to pronounce his line “¿Cua l es el
problema? [What is the problem?]” After a lengthy interaction in which Carl tried to help him, Carl finally suggested that James
say an alternative phrase.
The distribution of participation in Triad 5 reflects their collaborative/novice roles. Ann and Carl, the two collaborating
learners, produced 1218 and 1113 words respectively (Learners A and C on Table 1) in contrast with James, the novice, who
produced only 337. There were 10 LREs, 3 of which were resolved with the teacher's help and resulted in a high accuracy rate
(80%). In contrast with the other groups, Triad 5 had the second lowest number of LREs resolved by all three members and the
lowest number of LREs (60%) resolved by elaborate engagement. The fact that Carl is a heritage learner of Spanish creates an
interesting group dynamic. It is not surprising that James deferred to him as an expert; though Ann interacted with him more
collaboratively, she, too, consulted him about pronunciation.

6. Discussion

Given the small sample size for this analysis, the findings are preliminary, but these data do affirm that Storch's (2002)
observations about the importance of interaction patterns, specifically the superiority of collaborative and expert/novice
patterns, holds true in this context of triads. In general, the triads that interacted collaboratively produced the most LREs,
 A. Edstrom / System 52 (2015) 26e37 35

resolved the most LREs correctly, and involved the most learners in their resolution. Collaborative work, however, is not
synonymous with the equal distribution of conversational space nor with equality of roles. Clear leaders emerged in several
groups, and learners' orientation to the activity was a factor as well; that is, learners' motivation to complete the task and
engage with peers varied. Groups characterized by dominant interaction styles (dominant/dominant/dominant and
dominant/passive/off-task) engaged less as a threesome. There are no definitive findings that point to the superiority of pairs
or triads but rather to the importance of collaborative interaction characterized by on-task behavior, engagement by all
members, and amicable exchanges.
It is crucial that teachers foster true collaboration. These data show that non-cooperative triads drew heavily on their
instructor as a resource for resolving LREs. They showed no evidence of developing the skills necessary for resolving their own
linguistic problems. The ability to circumlocute, paraphrase, and apply supplementary resources is important for successful
communication outside the classroom. Additionally, if one of the purposes of group work is to maximize communicative
opportunities, these data indicate that at least one learner in every non-collaborative triad participated minimally (word
count less than half than that of peers) in contrast with only one such case in collaborative groups. Third, these findings
indicate that dominant interaction styles not only can create unproductive working conditions but also can escalate tension
among group members.
To foster collaborative interactions, teachers must monitor group activities and use their observations to place passive or
disengaged students effectively in future groups. Learners also need instruction on how to work together. They might analyze
samples of positive and negative interactions, such as Examples 1 and 3, as part of a training or awareness exercise, and
evaluate what makes one group effective and the other ineffective. Additionally, learners need to develop paraphrasing skills
as part of brainstorming. Triad 3 was not collaborative, in part, because of their inability to express creative ideas with simple
language they had already mastered. Their frustration produced hostility and prompted them to consult the teacher
frequently. Before assigning collaborative writing tasks, teachers might conduct a brainstorming session with the entire class
to help students generate manageable content.
The present data draw attention to several classroom realities. First, these students used the L1 extensively. They carried
out the task exclusively in L1 English and used Spanish only for script content and joking. In fact, one might argue that this
study showcases inappropriate use of the L1 in a task for which learners were not prepared. Though these data may reflect a
poorly conceived activity or a weak group of learners, such realities exist and raise a host of issues. How do students
communicate in triads when a task is too difficult or they are not prepared? Are these learners atypical or would many
learners in intermediate-level university Spanish classes carry out this type of task in their L1? Would learners who were not
studying Spanish to fulfill a requirement try harder or be more successful at using the L2? Answers to these questions are
beyond the scope of the present analysis but reflect the messiness of the realities that teachers face and demonstrate the
importance of analyzing less than perfect classroom scenarios.
Though sociocultural theory would affirm, to some degree, these learners' L1 use, several recent studies provide com-
parable frameworks for evaluating it more specifically. On one hand, Lasito and Storch (2013) reported low levels of L1 use
by 10th grade Indonesian learners of English during an oral task, as was the case in pair work by college-level Arabic
learners of English in Storch and Aldosari's (2010) study. On the other hand, DiCamilla and Anto  n's (2012) investigation
compared L1 use between beginning and advanced university learners during a collaborative activity. They found that
“first-year students of Spanish … relied heavily on their L1 to mediate their performance of the assigned task, whereas the
fourth-year students used the L2 with far great frequency” (p. 184e185). As did participants in the present study, DiCamilla
and Anto n's students focused their efforts on inventing content and on addressing grammatical and lexical issues.
Considering that the present participants are in the first semester of second year Spanish, their extensive L1 use, may be
normal. Nevertheless, the link between their performance and learning remains unexplored, and it is not clear whether or
not the L1 negotiation of vocabulary and grammatical structures that this activity facilitated enhanced their acquisition of
Spanish.

7. Conclusions

The results of this study further extend the body of research on collaborative work by supplementing existing pair work
data with data about triadic interaction. These findings do not assert the superiority of triads but rather confirm that the
importance of collaborative and expert/novice patterns established in studies of pairs also holds true for triads; in short, the
collaborative triads in the present investigation produced the most LREs, resolved the most LREs correctly, and involved the
most learners in their resolution.
This study highlights several possibilities for future research. As already noted, numerous investigations have examined
pair interactions between learners of different proficiency levels, but future research might focus on the interaction patterns
created by the presence of a heritage language learner in pairs and triads. The present results indicate that both non-native
and heritage learners may need assistance in establishing appropriate roles and expectations when working together.
Second, teachers would benefit from research that considers the relationship between group size and conflict in language
classes. Are dominant interaction styles more problematic in larger groups than in pairs? Is the nature of off-task behavior
different in pairs as opposed to triads or larger groups? Disengagement or passivity is one form of off-task behavior that may
occur in any setting, but whether or not excessive joking or silliness is more common among triads or groups than pairs is not
clear.
36 A. Edstrom / System 52 (2015) 26e37

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to the students and teachers who participated in this study as well as Montclair State University for granting
me a sabbatical to carry out this research project. Additional thanks go to the anonymous reviewers whose comments greatly
enhanced the quality of this manuscript.

Appendix

Task Description: An Emergency!

Imagine that you are on vacation with friends in Punta Cana. One of you suffers an accident or other medical problem and
needs to go to the emergency room at the hospital. Create a conversation between the following three people: (1) the doctor
or nurse (2) the patient who has the emergency, and (3) the friend who accompanied the patient. Be creative.

 Use body part and other vocabulary learned in this chapter

 Give a detailed explanation of what happened (where you were, what you were doing, who was there, what the conditions
were, etc. when the accident occurred or the medical problem surfaced)
 Ask a lot of questions/give a lot of details about the pain / accident / symptoms
 Include questions and information about what will happen next (treatment, possible hospital stay, discharge information,
etc.)

Each group member should participate equally, and your skit should last 3e4 minutes.

References

Alegría de la Colina, A., & García Mayo, M. del P. (2009). Oral interaction in task-based EFL learning: the use of the L1 as a cognitive tool. International Review
of Applied Linguistics, 47, 325e345.
Anton, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Sociocognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54,
314e342.
Baleghizadeh, S., & Rahimi, E. (2011). Who is to work with whom when it comes to pair work? A learner's perspective. Sino-US English Teaching, 8(6),
349e356.
Belz, J. (2002). The myth of the deficient communicator. Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 59e82.
Brooks, F., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77,
262e274.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402e423.
Cook, V. (2007). The nature of the L2 user. EUROSLA Yearbook, 7, 205e220.
DiCamilla, F., & Anto n, M. (2012). Functions of L1 in the collaborative interaction of beginning and advanced second language learners. International Journal
of Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 160e188.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. A. Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp.
33e56). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Duff, P. A., & Polio, C. G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 74(2), 154e166.
Ewald, J. (2005). Language-related episodes in an assessment context: a “small group quiz”. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(4), 565e586.
Fernandez Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 21, 40e58.
Fernandez Dobao, A. (2014). Attention to form in collaborative writing tasks: comparing pair and small group interaction. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 70(2), 158e187.
Fortune, A., & Thorp, D. (2001). Knotted and entangled: new light on the identification, classification and value of language related episodes in collaborative
output tasks. Language Awareness, 10(2&3), 143e160.
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners.
Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211e234.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002). The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language. International Journal of Educational Research, 37,
343e358.
Lasito, & Storch, N. (2013). Comparing pair and small group interactions on oral tasks. RELC Journal, 44, 361e375.
Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55e81.
Leow, R. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 47(3), 467e505.
Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2013). Patterns of computer-mediated interaction in small writing groups using wikis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 61e82.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.631142.
Loewen, S., & Basturkmen, H. (2005). Interaction in group writing tasks in genre-based instruction in an EAP classroom. Journal of Asian Pacific Commu-
nication, 15(1), 171e189.
Nassaji, H., & Tian, J. (2010). Collaborative and individual output tasks and their effects on learning English phrasal verbs. Language Teaching Research, 14(4),
397e419.
Nunan, D. (1992). Collaborative language learning and teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peacock, M. (1998). A useful and popular lesson? Comparing students working in pairs and threes in the ESL classroom. RELC Journal, 29(2), 27e49.
Philp, J., Walter, S., & Basturkmen, H. (2010). Peer interaction in the foreign language classroom: what factors foster a focus on form? Language Awareness,
19(4), 261e279.
Polio, C. G., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Teachers' language use in university foreign language classrooms: a qualitative analysis of English and target language
alternation. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 313e326.
Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 277e303.
Scott, V. M., & De la Fuente, M. J. (2008). What's the problem? L2 learners' use of the L1 during consciousness-raising, form-focused tasks. The Modern
Language Journal, 92, 100e113.
Seo, H., & Kim, T. (2011). Collaborative dialogues and L2 learning: Korean junior high school students' pair-work in English composition. Korean Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 345e380.
Shehadeh, A. (2004). Modified output during task-based pair interaction and group interaction. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(3), 351e382.
 A. Edstrom / System 52 (2015) 26e37 37

Smith, K. A. (2000). Going deeper: formal small-group learning in a large classroom. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 81, 25e46.
Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27, 363e374.
Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5(1), 29e53.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119e158.
Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 143e159.
Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17(2), 95e114.
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2010). Learners' use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 355e375.
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 31e48.
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The con-
tributions of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95e108). London, UK: Continuum.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: a step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
16(3), 371e391.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern
Language Journal, 82(3), 320e337.
Tan, L., Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2010). Pair interactions and mode of communication: comparing face-to-face and computer mediated communi-
cation. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 1e24.
Thoms, J., Liao, J., & Szustak, A. (2005). The use of L1 in an L2 on-line chat activity. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 62(1), 161e182.
Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role of the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, but…. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(4), 531e540.
Turnbull, M., & Dailey-O'Cain, J. (2009). First language use in second and foreign language learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer-peer interaction between L2 learners of different proficiency levels: their interactions and reflections. The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 64(4), 605e635.
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: collaborative dialogue
between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121e142.
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2008). Perception of learner proficiency: Its impact on the interaction between an ESL learner and her higher and lower
proficiency partners. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 17(2), 115e130.
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445e466.
Yoshida, R. (2008). Learners' perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 525e541.