Do Children Negotiate For Meaning in Task-Based Interaction

System xxx (2015) 1e15
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system
Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction?

Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings
María del Pilar García Mayo a, *, Amparo La
zaro Ibarrola b, 1
a
Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU), Departamento de Filología Inglesa, Paseo de la Universidad 5, 01006 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
b
Universidad Pública de Navarra (UPNA), Departamento de Filología y Didactica de la Lengua y la Literatura,
Edificio Los Magnolios-Campus de Arrosadía, 31006 Pamplona, Spain
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Interaction research has demonstrated the facilitative role of negotiation of meaning in the
Received 12 July 2014 process of L2 learning. Pioneering work by Oliver (2002) considered child interaction in an
Received in revised form 2 October 2014 English as a second language (ESL) setting. However, little is known about child interaction
Accepted 5 December 2014
in foreign language classrooms and much less about a new learning context that is
Available online xxx
becoming prevalent in Europe: Content-and-language-integrated-learning (CLIL).
Although general discourse features have been investigated in this setting, it is still
Keywords:
necessary to examine whether its special characteristics (more exposure to the target
Interaction
Children
language and interactive methodology) have an effect on learners' production. This paper
EFL focuses on English as a foreign language (EFL) and CLIL children's oral interaction while
CLIL completing a picture-placement task. Eighty (80) 8e11 year old children were paired to
Picture placement form 40 age- and proficiency-matched dyads (20 EFL, 20 CLIL) and their oral production
Task was analyzed to identify the different strategies they use to complete the task. Findings
Conversational adjustments point to quantitative differences between the two contexts and age groups. CLIL learners
negotiate more and resort to the L1 less frequently than EFL learners. On the other hand,
older children in both contexts negotiate less and use the L1 more frequently than younger
children.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Numerous studies to date have recognized the positive role of learner interaction in the second language (L2) acquisition
process (García Mayo & Alco n Soler, 2013; Mackey, 2007; Mackey, Abbuhl, & Gass, 2011; Pica, 2013, among many others). The
Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996) claims that incidental learning is facilitated through negotiation of meaning when in-
teractions are modified among conversational partners to avoid breakdowns in communication. The overall finding of these
studies is that interaction facilitates L2 learning because (i) it provides positive input sometimes uniquely modified to suit
learners' needs (comprehensible input), (ii) learners produce comprehensible output, that is, they modify their own contri-
butions to a conversation in order to make themselves understood (modified output), and (iii) learners may receive corrective
feedback in numerous forms in response to their output.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 945013036; fax: þ34 945 013201.

zaro Ibarrola).
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.P. García Mayo), [email protected] (A. La
1
Tel.: þ34 948 169466; fax: þ34 948 169463.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.12.001
0346-251X/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: García Mayo M.P., & Lazaro Ibarrola, A., Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based
interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings, System (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.12.001
2 zaro Ibarrola / System xxx (2015) 1e15
M.P. García Mayo, A. La
Most of this research has focused on English as a second language (ESL) adult populations (Mackey, 2007, 2012 for a
review), with the exception of the pioneering work by Oliver (2002, 2009 et passim), who examined child interaction in ESL
settings. This scarcity of research on child interaction is even more telling when one thinks of research in foreign language
settings (L azaro & Azpilicueta Martínez, 2015; Pinter, 2007; Van den Branden, 1997, 2000, 2008), something that is in
contrast with the increasing number of foreign language programs for children all over the world and the introduction of
foreign languages in school settings earlier in life (García Mayo & García Lecumberri, 2003; Cameron, 2003; Enever, 2011;
Mun ~ oz, 2006; Nikolov & Mihaljevic Djigunovi ~ oz (2014a) points out, in 2011 only 4 countries in
c, 2006, 2011). In fact, as Mun
Europe retained 10 or 11 as the age to start exposure to a foreign language whereas 23 countries mandated an earlier start
age. Considering the concern in these settings about learners not achieving fluency in the foreign language after many years
of exposure, research should focus on obtaining information about EFL learners in order to maximize their opportunities for
learning (Pinter, 2011).
In fact, a new methodological approach, known as Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is being extensively
implemented in many European countries (Dalton-Puffer, 2007, 2011) in order to improve learning opportunities in
foreign language contexts. In this approach learners have more hours of exposure to the target language and follow an
interactive methodology where tasks play a central role. Tasks provide learners with the opportunity to use language with
a purpose and have been widely used in second language acquisition (SLA) research to gather samples of learner language
(García Mayo, 2007). Research on interaction in CLIL from a cognitive perspective (Long, 1996; Mackey, 2012) is very
limited among adult populations (but see García Mayo & Basterrechea, in press; Basterrechea & García Mayo, 2013) and
basically non-existent with children.
Thus, the present study aims to be a first step in documenting EFL children's negotiation strategies in two educational
settings, namely mainstream EFL and CLIL, both of which remain under-explored from an interactionist perspective. Spe-
cifically, this paper documents the oral interaction of 80 Spanish EFL children of two age groups while completing a two-way
communicative task (picture-placement). The children belonged to two different state schools in Pamplona (Northern Spain)
following similar educational programs. In documenting the children's negotiation strategies, we take up the call made by
Philp, Oliver, and Mackey (2008: 13) for “[…] rich detailed descriptions of the many and various factors which interact to
impact a given child's L2 development”. The participants in the study, 80 8e11 year-old children, were paired to form 40 age-
and proficiency-matched dyads (20 EFL, 20 CLIL) and their oral production was video-recorded, transcribed and coded in
order to analyze their conversational strategies.
2. Literature background
2.1. Negotiation of meaning in a second language (L2)
As mentioned above, research on conversational interaction during the past three decades has shown that the processes
that occur when learnerelearner and learnerenative speaker (NS) engage in L2 learning (see Keck, Iberri-Shea, Tracy-Ven-
tura, & Wa-Mbaleka, 2006, and Mackey & Goo, 2007 for meta-analyses). Numerous studies have shown that incidental
learning is facilitated through the negotiation of meaning, defined by Pica (1994: 494) as:
[…] the modification and restructuring of interaction that occurs when learners and their interlocutors anticipate,
perceive or experience difficulties in message comprehensibility. As they negotiate, they work linguistically to achieve
the needed comprehensibility, whether repeating a message verbatim, adjusting its syntax, changing its words, or
modifying its form and meaning in a host of other ways.
Negotiation of meaning affords learners comprehensible input but it may also bring about changes in learner production
(output), attention to problematic formal and meaning aspects on the basis of feedback provided and, most importantly, the
engagement of the learners' cognitive mechanisms (attention) in processing form-meaning relationships.
Long (1983) operationalized the conversational adjustments that interlocutors use during negotiation of meaning as
confirmation checks, clarification requests and comprehension checks. Confirmation checks are “any expressions […]
immediately following an utterance by the interlocutor which are designed to elicit confirmation that the utterance has been
correctly heard or understood by the speaker.” (Long, 1983: 137). One speaker seeks confirmation of the other's preceding
utterance through repetition, with rising intonation, of what was perceived to be all or part of the preceding utterance (Pica,
1987). Consider the following example:
(1) NS English: did you get high marks? Good grades?

Learner: high marks? ← confirmation check
NS English. good grades A's and B's e did you get A in English?
Learner: oh no in English yes em B
(Pica, 1987)
zaro Ibarrola / System xxx (2015) 1e15
M.P. García Mayo, A. La 3
A clarification request is “any expression … designed to elicit clarification of the interlocutor's preceding utterance(s).”
(Long, 1983: 137). One speaker seeks assistance in understanding the other speaker's preceding utterance through questions,
statements such as ‘I don't understand’, or imperatives such as ‘Please repeat’ (Pica, 1987). Example (2) features a clarification
request:
(2) NS English: so you came here by yourself or did you come with friends?
Learner: no no I e what? What you say? ← clarification request
NS English: did you come to the states with friends or did you come alone?
(Pica, 1987)
Comprehension checks are “attempts to anticipate and prevent a breakdown in communication.” (Long, 1983: 136), that is,
moves by which one speaker tries to determine whether the other speaker has understood a preceding message (Pica, 1987),
as seen in example (3):
(3) NNS: up there is cupboard … up there.

You know what's cupboard is? ← comprehension check
(Oliver, 2009)
Long's (1996) updated version of the Interaction Hypothesis highlights the benefits of interaction as a context where
learners not only obtain comprehensible input (positive evidence) and produce modified output but where they might also
receive corrective feedback, that is, information (provided directly or indirectly) about what is not correct (see Mackey, 2012,
for a recent overview of the interactionist framework). Negative feedback serves as a means to draw learner's attention to the
form of the language, a crucial aspect in the development of accuracy in SLA, and when this corrective feedback is provided
during learners' interactions it seems to be particularly beneficial because its provision is matched with the intended meaning
(Leeman, 2007).
The negotiation of meaning that occurs during learnerelearner and learnereNS interaction has been claimed to be
n Soler, 2013, for a review). Research indicates that
facilitative for L2 acquisition at different levels (see García Mayo & Alco
through interaction language learners obtain crucial information that may assist them in their performance and in their
acquisition process. However, as mentioned above, most of the studies supporting these claims were carried out in laboratory
or classroom settings with adult ESL populations. The question remains as to whether negotiation of meaning will also occur
in child interaction. The following section will provide an overview of the pioneering work by Oliver in the Australian ESL
setting and of the limited research done in EFL settings.
2.2. Child interaction
Oliver's (1998, 2002, 2009 et passim) pioneering work on child interaction in ESL was triggered by the fact that at the time
she carried out her research “[…] the (negotiation of meaning) process (had) not been adequately studied in child pop-
ulations” (1998: 373). Since then, she has shown that children do negotiate for meaning with age-matched peers while
working on communicative tasks and that they use conversational strategies similar to the ones adults use but in a smaller
proportion. Before reviewing some of the main findings of research on child interaction, we should mention that childhood
cannot be taken as a whole but, rather, as a continuum where several stages have been identified. Philp et al. (2008: 5e6)
mention that these stages follow the divisions of schooling: (i) Early childhood (2e7 years of age), preschool and beginning
grades, (ii) middle school (7e11 years), elementary school, (iii) early adolescence (12e14 years), junior high school, and (iv)
later adolescence (15 years and older), in high school.
Oliver (1998) analyzed the oral interaction of 96 age- and gender-matched pairs of 8e13 year old children while they
completed two communicative tasks. She concluded that the children were able to use conversational adjustments when
negotiating for meaning (clarification requests, confirmation checks and repetitions) and that their differences with
respect to adult populations previously studied had to do with the proportional use of particular negotiation strategies.
For example, due probably to the egocentric nature of children, their use of comprehension checks was very rare. They
tended to “[…] focus on constructing their own meaning, and less on facilitating their partner's construction of meaning.”
(Oliver, 1998: 379). Oliver concluded that negotiation of meaning among children seemed to provide the same benefits
that it had for adults and that tasks that promote such negotiation could be successfully undertaken in primary school
settings. In a more recent study, Oliver (2009) considered whether younger children, ages 5e7, negotiated for meaning
and provided and used corrective feedback. She concluded that, like their older counterparts, these children also nego-
tiated for meaning and used the same strategies in their interactional exchanges found in her previous studies. The
findings also showed that young learners were able to provide their partners with corrective feedback. There was a
difference, though, regarding how the younger learners approached the task, as they were much more likely to “please
themselves about how they completed the set task. They seemed to be less bound by the content and structure of the
task.” (Oliver, 2009: 152).
Oliver (2002) considered the issue of nativeness of interlocutors and proficiency level in childechild interaction. She
analyzed the interaction of 32 non-native speakers (NNS)eNS, 48 NNSeNNS and 16 NSeNS dyads while completing two
communicative tasks and concluded that the amount of negotiation of meaning was influenced by both variables, nativeness
and proficiency. In nearly all cases, NNSeNNS dyads used more negotiation of meaning strategies than did NNSeNS dyads
who, in turn, used more than did the NSeNS dyads. The general trend regarding language proficiency was that the least
native-like pairs produced the most amount of negotiation.
Although research on interaction in EFL foreign language settings with adult populations has been carried out (Alco n Soler
& García Mayo, 2008; McDonough, 2004; Philp & Tognini, 2009 for a review), very few studies have examined the role of
interaction among children in this setting. Compared to immersion or second language contexts, foreign language settings
have specific characteristics, such as fewer hours of exposure to the target language and limited access to English outside
classes, which would make it difficult to generalize findings from other contexts. They are low-input level contexts where
learners are exposed to the foreign language for about 3e4 per week, although there is a great variety of foreign language
programs (Edelenbos, Johnstone, & Kubanek, 2006).
Van den Branden (1997) carried out a study to investigate the effect of various types of negotiation on learners' output.
There were three groups of 11e12-year old children learning Dutch who were asked to describe pictures to a partner in a
communicative context. The task they had to solve required information exchange so the dyad members were pushed to
make conversational adjustments to make their output comprehensible. Van den Branden reported that children picked up
words and idioms that they had used in their negotiation of meaning exchanges and that they recycled them in later per-
formance.2 Pen ~ ate Cabrera and Bazo Martínez (2001) investigated the listening comprehension of 60 Spanish fourth year
primary school children who had studied EFL for two years. The participants listened to two tales that had been simplified
under two different conditions: (i) with linguistic adjustments, and (ii) with linguistic and interactional adjustments (rep-
etitions, comprehension checks, and gestures). The authors reported that the participants were able to follow the thread of
the story told by the teacher only under the second condition.
Mackey and Silver (2005) studied the oral interaction of 26 L1 Chinese EFL learners, ages 6e9, in Singapore while they
carried out different communicative tasks with native English speakers. The experimental group (n ¼ 14) received interaction
feedback on question formation and the control group (n ¼ 12) did not. The findings showed that the experimental group
improved in terms of question formation and demonstrated a relationship between interactional feedback and language
development. Note, however, that the interaction studied here was not learnerelearner interaction but, rather, learnereNS
interaction.
Pinter (2006) studied the strategies 20 Hungarian 10e11-year old children used while completing a spot-the-difference
task and compared those strategies to the ones used by 10 college learners, with the same beginner-post-beginner
competence. She reported that “[…] children did not find as many differences as adults […]. In general the children used a
looser approach to handling referential conflicts in the task while the adults held a very strong grip on these.” (2006: 634).
Pinter (2007) analyzed the benefits of learnerelearner interaction in one pair of 10 year old Hungarian EFL learners while
completing a spot-the-difference task. The children were recorded three times over a three-week period (using a different set
of pictures each time) to assess the potential effects of task repetition. Pinter reported instances of peer assistance and of
learners' attention to each other's utterances and suggested that task repetition can work effectively with children of this age
and low proficiency levels.
More recently, Butler and Zeng (2014) considered whether young learners' foreign language abilities could be best
evaluated with tasks. The study aimed to assess the strengths and weaknesses of pair work among young learners in
foreign language settings. In order to understand developmental differences in interaction, they analyzed the oral
output of 32 fourth-grade students (ages 9e10) and 32 sixth-grade students (ages 11e12) and their teachers in a task-
based program in public elementary school in China. The researchers reported differences between the two grade
levels; thus, “[…] the fourth-grade dyads showed less mutual topic development, used formulaic turn-taking more
frequently, and had a harder time taking their partners' perspectives during tasks.” (Butler & Zeng, 2014: 45). They
concluded with a call for more research on the strategies and resources young learners use to engage in collaborative
interaction.
zaro & Azpilicueta Martínez, (2015) identified the interactional strategies used by a very young group of 16 7e8 year old
La
Spanish EFL learners while completing a guessing game task. Couched with an interactionist framework, the study concludes
that these very young children do negotiate for meaning but much less than ESL adult and child learners. The EFL children use
the same strategies as ESL adults and children except for comprehension checks, as was the case with the ESL children in
Oliver's studies. Also, an interactional strategy that was included in their inventory was the use of the children's shared first
language (L1), Spanish, while completing the task. The main finding was that the children were able to collaborate in English
in order to complete the task even though they had a very limited proficiency in the target language. La zaro & Azpilicueta
2
See Van den Branden (2000, 2008) for work on the impact of negotiation of meaning on reading comprehension.
Martínez, (2015) concluded that their study provides evidence for the use of communicative tasks to promote interaction in
the EFL classroom even at low proficiency levels.
The EFL studies briefly summarized above have all been carried out in typical mainstream EFL settings, where
children are exposed to the foreign language for 4e5 h per week. In the Spanish educational context, a number of
studies has focused on the comparison of groups of learners with different starting ages (see the articles in the
volumes edited by García Mayo & García Lecumberri, 2003, and Mun ~ oz, 2006). The studies focused on different
linguistic areas but they all pointed to a consistent finding: there was a rate advantage for late starters over early
starters when the number of instructional hours was controlled for. Recent research by Mun ~ oz (2014b) concludes that
input characteristics are a more important factor than starting age when the oral performance of foreign language
learners is analyzed.
To the best of our knowledge, no research so far has been carried out comparing mainstream EFL children to
children following a new methodological approach which is becoming more and more popular in Europe: Content and
Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). The next section will provide some information about this new methodological
approach.
2.3. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)
CLIL is an umbrella term adopted by the European Network of Administrators, Researchers and Practitioners. It en-
compasses the learning of a non-language subject through a foreign language where the subject and language have a joint
role. Dalton-Puffer (2011: 183) described CLIL as “[…] an educational approach where curricular content is taught through
the medium of a foreign language, typically to students participating in some form of mainstream education at the primary,
secondary, or tertiary level.”. The learners following a CLIL program learn a subject using the language they are trying to
learn. Integrating language and content provides the opportunity to have additional exposure to the foreign language
without having to add extra classes to an already crowded timetable. Learners in CLIL classrooms are exposed to more hours
of input of the target language than their mainstream counterparts and the interactive classroom methodology is believed
to enhance learning opportunities because it provides “[…] plenty of real and meaningful input to the learners and raises
their overall proficiency in the target language.” (Coyle, 2007: 548). Although there is a clear prevalence of English in this
type of programs (Eurydice European Network, 2006), the number of hours to which CLIL learners are exposed to the
foreign language varies tremendously depending on the country, the school and the level (primary, secondary) (Kerstin
Sylven, 2013).
Research regarding the benefits of CLIL programs in contrast to mainstream EFL programs has increased in the last decade.
Although it is premature to establish generalizations due to the above mentioned differences in the types of programs,
research seems to point to an advantage for CLIL learners when overall linguistic competence is assessed (Lasagabaster, 2008).
This advantage includes general proficiency in English (Coyle, 2007; Dalton-Puffer, 2007; Lasagabaster, 2008; Lorenzo, Casal,
& Moore, 2010) and also some specific areas of the language: for instance, CLIL learners have been claimed to display a faster
morphosyntactic development (La zaro Ibarrola, 2012; La zaro Ibarrola & García Mayo, 2012; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008 among
mez Lacabex, & García Lecumberri, 2009),
others), a more intelligible and less irritating foreign accent (Gallardo del Puerto, Go
greater fluency (Dalton-Puffer, 2007; Gallardo del Puerto et al., 2009), a greater amount of receptive vocabulary (Jime nez
Catalan & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2009) and less reliance on their first language (L1) (Celaya & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010). However,
no significant differences seemed to be found when fine-grained grammatical issues were considered (García Mayo &
Villarreal Olaizola, 2011). What is clear is that no research has been carried out considering the negotiation of meaning
strategies of EFL vs. CLIL child learners, which is the main goal of this paper.
2.4. Communicative tasks
Interaction research has used tasks that engage learners in meaningful, goal-oriented language use. Several studies
have shown that tasks that are most successful in triggering interaction are those where information exchange is
required in order to complete the task, as learners exchange information among each other, solve problems and reach
decisions. Popular information gap tasks are those where the learners have to locate differences in pictures or texts e
spot-the-difference tasks-, reconstruct a story on the basis of visual input- jigsaw- and make decisions about language
choices and justify them e grammar decision making tasks-. Van den Branden (2008: 152) reports that in information
gap tasks negotiation of meaning can be regarded as task-essential (Loshky & Bley-Vroman, 1993). Pica, Kang, and
Sauro (2006) and Pica, Sauro, and Lee (2007) developed a method for devising information gap tasks to help stu-
dents in content-based language courses to notice low-salience features and forms. Pica et al. (2006) emphasize that
the tasks used have to be not only communicatively attractive but also consistent with the content of the classroom
curriculum in order to draw learners' attention. As Pica (2013: 62) states “To enhance their authenticity, and ensure
their long-term use, research tasks first need to be integrated into curriculum texts, topics and assignments, and have
enough variety to warrant sustained participation”. This aspect has been taken into account in devising the task used in
the present study.
3. Research questions
On the basis of the literature review summarized in the previous section, the following questions were asked:
1. Do CLIL and EFL children negotiate for meaning while completing a picture-placement task with age- and proficiency-
matched peers?
2. If so, are there any differences regarding learning context (CLIL vs. EFL) or age (8e9 vs. 10e11)
And the following hypotheses were advanced:
Hypothesis 1: On the basis of previous research with ESL children we hypothesize that CLIL and EFL children will also use
negotiation of meaning in their oral exchanges.
Hypothesis 2: When comparing educational settings, CLIL children are expected to use more negotiation of meaning
than their EFL counterparts due to the more interactive methodology used in the CLIL setting. They would also be
expected to fall back on their shared L1 to a lesser extent as these learners are expected to have more linguistic
resources.
Hypothesis 3: On the basis of previous research on the age factor in foreign language settings (García Mayo & García
Lecumberri, 2003; Mun ~ oz, 2006), when comparing different educational levels within the same educational setting
(i.e. children of different school grades within CLIL or EFL programs), the older learners are expected to fare better
regarding negotiation of meaning and to resort to their shared L1 less frequently.
4. Material and methods
4.1. Participants
The participants in the study were 80 children who were paired up by learning context and age. There were 20 dyads of
8e9 year old children (24 malese16 females) in third year of Primary Education and 20 dyads of 10e11 children (16 malese24
females) in fifth year of Primary Education. Within each group, there were 10 EFL and 10 CLIL dyads. Table 1 shows the
distribution of the participants in the study.
The students belonged to two different schools in Pamplona (Northern Spain). Both were state schools in the same city,
located in working-class neighborhoods, and following similar educational programmes. The difference between the two
schools was that one of them had implemented CLIL methodologies while the other only offered EFL lessons. Apart from
English, Spanish was the only language used in the schools.
The students in the EFL school had been learning English since the first year of Primary Education (when they
turned 6). Every year they had five English lessons per week (around 165 h per school year). These lessons followed a
typical communicative methodology including the standard activities covering the four skills. For the purposes of the
present study, the proficiency of the students was judged using school-internal assessment tests and governmental
examinations. As usual in EFL contexts, where age goes along with proficiency, fifth year learners had a slightly better
command of the language. However, all of them were real beginners and had a very low level of English: they were
able to understand simple instructions in the classroom context and were also able to produce guided language at a
basic level.
The students in the CLIL school had been receiving half of their lessons in English since the first year of Nursery School
(when they were 3) following a CLIL methodology, that is, different contents were taught in English but the lessons included
a clear focus on learning the language as well. All the main subjects were taught in English in different years. The
approximate number of CLIL lessons per week is 12, which means a total amount of 396 h per school year (more than twice
the number of hours the mainstream group received). These lessons present a great variety of contents, but in all of them
the students were used to always interacting in English with their teacher and, to a lesser extent, with their peers. As for
their level, the situation is similar to that of the EFL group. According to internal (school) and external (government) as-
sessments, they could also be considered beginner learners, although the older group had reached a slightly better com-
mand of the language.
All the participants belonged to the middle-school age. According to Piaget's (1926/1955) stages of development, the
children participating in our study are in the so-called concrete operational stage: they have the ability to operate in a logical
fashion, use analogy competently and appreciate causality. In general, they do not seem to have difficulties with symbolic
Table 1
Participant distribution by age and setting.
EFL CLIL
3rd Primary Education (8-9 year olds) 10 dyads 10 dyads
5th Primary Education (10e11 year olds) 10 dyads 10 dyads
and abstract thought and they should experience a gradual loss of the egocentricity characteristic of younger children.
Pinter (2006) refers to research by Lloyd (1991), who reports that 10e11 year olds are able to provide communicative
support to each other. However, research by Menyuk and Brisk (2005) indicates that from 9 to 13 conversational interaction
is still developing.
We have focused on 8e9 and 10e11 year olds in the present paper because that age range represents a period in which
children are becoming gradually more aware of the pragmatics of speech acts and are more metalinguistic e aware than
zaro & Azpilicueta Martínez, (2015), while a task as formally and cognitively
younger children (Philp et al., 2008). Following La
demanding as interaction could be too difficult for children in early childhood, it might be feasible and even beneficial for
those in middle school.
4.2. The task
The task used was a picture difference task (also known as spot-the-difference) where both learners in the dyad had to
ask for and receive information. The pairs were taken one by one by the researchers to a separate classroom. There, they
sat at two desks that were placed together but with a folding screen between them so that the students could not see
each other. In this study, part of a larger one, we wanted them to rely exclusively on their oral English and no other (non-
verbal) resources. The learners had two similar posters with six pictures of children (pictures aef). Learner A would have
the poster with pictures a and b on it and the rest of the pictures outside the poster, whereas learner B would have
pictures c and d and the rest outside the poster (see Appendix). The objects featured in the poster were familiar to the
children because the task was specifically designed for these groups on the basis of the vocabulary they had been working
on in their classes. That is, from the start we wanted to establish a clear teachereresearcher collaboration in the whole
project.
The goal of the game was that students managed to complete their posters so that both members of the dyad had the same
photos in the same positions. They had no information about the number of photos that their partner had. The researcher in
charge of the video-recording of the children's interaction emphasized that they were about to do team work and they had to
help each other. A week before data collection started, the teacher played a similar game with the whole class (using a
different poster and different pictures) to ensure familiarity with the procedure.
4.3. Data collection and codification procedures
The video-recorded oral interaction of the 40 dyads, approximately 9 h, was transcribed verbatim. All speech signals
relevant to understand learnerelearner interaction were included e surprise, different intonation patterns e as well as non-
verbal signals that could help the understanding of child discourse. Several rounds of coding between the two researchers
resulted in agreement of 97%.
Following pioneering work on child interaction (Oliver, 1998 et passim), the following features were the basis of the
analysis of learnereleaner negotiation of meaning in this study: clarification requests, confirmation checks, comprehension
checks and repetition (self- and other-). As our learners shared a common language (Spanish), we also codified the extent to
which learners made use of that strategy. Recent research (Tognini & Oliver, 2012) has claimed that L1 use has positive effects
in child learnerelearner interaction. The percentage ratio in all the analyses was calculated by dividing the number of
negotiation strategies by the number of utterances and multiplying by 100 (Oliver, 1998: 375). A two-sample binomial test for
independent samples was used for statistical analyses.
Below we illustrate each strategy found with examples taken from the current database:
Conversational adjustments
(4) Clarification request

CHILD 1: is with the dog?
CHILD 2: what? ← clarification request
(3rd EFL, dyad 3)
(5) Confirmation checks

CHILD 1: and what colour is your shoes?
CHILD 2: brown
CHILD 1: brown? ← confirmation check
(3rd EFL/dyad 5)
(6) Comprehension checks

CHILD 1: between the two tables in the classroom
CHILD 2: between the two tables in the classroom .. and a little bit and .. is looking a little bit at the end of the blackboard.
Did you understand?← comprehension check
(5th CLIL/dyad 8)
Repetition
As in Pica and Doughty (1985), and following Oliver (1998), we coded self-repetitions as the speaker's partial and exact
repetition of words from their own preceding utterances within five speaking turns:
Self-repetition
(7) CHILD 1: what is … is a ball?

CHILD 2: is a ball?
CHILD 1: a ball ← self-repetition (partial)
Other repetitions included partial and exact repetitions of words from an interlocutor's preceding utterance within five
speaking turns:
Other repetition
(8) CHILD 1: but a bit more to the right

CHILD 2: is in the middle of the seats
CHILD 1: yes, is in the middle of the seats
L1 use
(9) Child 1: is a boy .. play .. eh … play a football in the park?

Child 2. yes .. is cerca del (near the) park
In what follows we present the findings obtained from the data collected and their possible interpretation.
5. Results and discussion
This section reports first the findings regarding the contrast between children of the same age range but enrolled in
different teaching approaches (CLIL vs. EFL) and then the findings where we compare the negotiation patterns of children of
different age ranges but following the same teaching approach.
Table 2 features information regarding conversational adjustments by age and setting.
Let us start by considering the differences between children of the same age in the two different educational settings (CLIL
vs. EFL).
As Fig. 1 shows, the 3rd year CLIL group doubles the number of conversational adjustments (8.96% vs. 4%), a difference that
turns out to be statistically significant (p-value: .000494). In previous studies it has been shown that the higher the profi-
ciency level in the target language, the lower the use of conversational adjustments (Oliver, 1998). That finding seems
reasonable because when the level in the target language is high, speakers understand each other easily and do not need to
make use of clarifications or confirmations. Both groups of learners in the present study have a beginner proficiency level but
CLIL learners use significantly more conversational adjustments than their EFL counterparts. This finding, rather than con-
tradicting the view just mentioned above, would support the proposal by La zaro & Azpilicueta Martínez, (2015) that a
minimum threshold level is necessary for learners to be able to negotiate in the target language and, perhaps, the learners in
Table 2
Interaction strategies by age and setting.
3rd EFL 5th EFL 3rd CLIL 5th CLIL

Total number of turns 452 565 560 495
average (range) 45 (14e106) 56 (27e78) 56 (25e82) 49 (11e107)
Total number of utterances 500 663 625 604
average (range) 50 (20e108) 66 (31e92) 62.5 (26e89) 60.4 (12e125)
Average time spent on task (minutes and seconds) 6.7 7.8 6.6 6.9
Clarification requests 13 (2.6%) 8 (1.2%) 39 (6.24%) 31 (5.1%)
Confirmation checks 5 (1%) 4 (.6%) 12 (1.92%) 7 (1.1)
Comprehension checks 2 (.4%) 7 (1.05%) 5 (.8%) 3 (.4%)
Total conversational adjustments 20 (4%) 19 (2.8%) 56 (8.96%) 41 (6.7%)
Self-repetition 9 (1.8%) 1 (.1%) 19 (3.04%) 11 (1.82%)
Other repetition 17 (3.4%) 6 (.9%) 16 (2.56%) 5 (.82%)
Total repetition 26 (5.2%) 7 (1.05%) 35 (5.6%) 16 (2.6%)
L1 use 18 (3.6%) 61 (9.2%) 10 (1.6%) 26 (4.3%)
8.96%
5.20%
4% 5.60%
3.60%
1.60%
Conv. Adj. Repetition L1 use
3rd CLIL 3rd EFL
Fig. 1. 3rd CLIL vs. 3rd EFL.
the EFL group (3rd year) have not reached this level yet. It could also be argued that learners in CLIL contexts are more able to
interact because of the active methodology they follow in the classroom (Coyle, 2007). In other words, they are more used to
speaking in the target language (with the teacher or among themselves) and have thus acquired skills to interact (Ball &
Lindsay, 2010).
The information in Table 2 and Fig. 1 also shows that the CLIL group uses fewer instances of their L1, a finding that is
significant (p-value: .0161) and would be expected if it is assumed that CLIL learners are more fluent than their EFL
counterparts and are more used to speaking English with a meaningful purpose. Finally, the total number of turns and
utterances and their corresponding averages are higher in the CLIL group showing a greater ability to produce language in
this context.
Regarding the contrast between the 5th CLIL and 5th EFL groups, Fig. 2 shows that, once again, the CLIL group uses more
conversational adjustments than their EFL counterparts, a difference that is statistically significant (p-value: .0005).
The CLIL group uses fewer instances of the shared L1, once more, and the difference is significant when compared to the
EFL group (p-value: .0029). Unlike 3rd year CLIL learners, 5th year learners had a more limited production in number of
utterances and number of turns. Our interpretation is that they spoke less because they simply managed to finish the task
very quickly thanks to their more frequent use of the language in the classroom.
Let us consider now how learners within the same methodological approach but of different age groups will fare regarding
negotiation of meaning in their oral interaction. As Fig. 3 shows the main observation in the comparison between the 3rd EFL
and the 5th EFL groups is that the older learners use fewer conversational adjustments, fewer repetitions and more L1 words.
The comparison regarding repetitions is statistically significant (p-value: .00013), with the younger learners using them more
frequently as would be expected. The difference in L1 use is also significant (p-value: .00086), with the unexpected finding
that the older learners use it more frequently than the younger ones. As for the number of turns and utterances, there is an
increase from 3rd year EFL to 5th year EFL, which might be indicating an increasing capacity to produce oral English.
Therefore, it can be speculated that the greater cognitive abilities of 10e11 year olds could have led to their greater production
and lower use of repetitions (Fig. 3).
Regarding conversational adjustments, similar findings are observed when comparing the 3rd CLIL and the 5th CLIL
groups, as seen in Fig. 4.
9.20%
6.70%
4.30%
2.60%
2.80%
1.05%
Conv. Adj. Repetition L1 Use
5th CLIL 5th EFL
Fig. 2. 5th CLIL vs. 5th EFL.
9.20%
5.20%
4%
2.80% 3.60%
1.05%
3rd EFL 5th EFL
Fig. 3. 3rd EFL vs. 5th EFL.
8.96%
6.70%
5.60%
4.30%
2.60%
1.60%
3rd CLIL 5th CLIL
Fig. 4. 3rd CLIL vs. 5th CLIL.
Once more, the significant differences have to do with the more frequent use of both repetition by the younger learners (p-
value: .00047) and a more frequent use of the L1 by the older ones (p-value: .00246). There are no statistically significant
differences in the number of conversational adjustments, although the older group uses them less frequently. The fact that the
group of 10e11 year olds in both EFL and CLIL settings uses fewer conversational adjustments might be explained assuming
that they are moving towards a point in their development when these negotiation moves are not necessary because the
learners' linguistic abilities allow them to understand each other while resolving the task without difficulties.
It was surprising to find that both the 5th CLIL and 5th EFL groups used the L1 more frequently than their 3rd CLIL and 3rd
EFL counterparts. Although L1 use presents great individual variability, on the basis of previous classroom observation of the
groups on the part of the researchers (both external to the schools and acquainted with all the participants to the same
extent), we could speculate that the learners in 5th year used their shared L1 as a short-cut even if they would be able to
paraphrase or circumlocute better than their younger peers, who tried really hard to show how much they knew to impress
the teacher. The researcher collecting the data reported a clearly different attitude in the two groups. Thus, while the 3rd year
students tried really hard, found the task funny and were willing to be called upon by the researcher, those in 5th year
expressed a certain embarrassment to speak English in front of their peers and to be recorded. However, as one of the re-
viewers rightly pointed out, given that we have not collected data on the learners' motivation toward the task for this
particular study, the higher use of the shared L1 by the older learners due to possible motivation/attitudinal factors remains
totally speculative and an area for further research.
In general, all learners make little use of their shared L1, which is very positive considering their young age and the foreign
language context where they are learning. EFL learners used the L1 more frequently than CLIL learners so it would seem that a
more intensive exposure to the foreign language would lead to a lower reliance on the L1. It is also a very positive finding
regarding collaborative work in foreign language settings, as collaborative work has been shown to be beneficial for language
learning (Ferna ndez Dobao, 2012; Swain, 2000). As for L1 functions, most turns illustrated a metacognitive function: the
participants used their L1 to organize and monitor the activity, check goals and check comprehension. They do establish a
good collaborative tone. Consider (10)e(13):
(10) Learner A: what?

Learner B: the girl .. La has puesto (Have you placed her?) (3rd CLIL)
(11) Ah! Me toca a mí (it is my turn) .. you have a … He has the ball in his hands ? (5th
CLIL)
(12) The boy is … ehh .. Cambio de pregunta (I change the question). The girl is opposite
the flowers? (3rd EFL)
(13) (it's done). (5th EFL)

Cupboard. Ya esta
However, a more detailed study of why and when the L1 is used is necessary but beyond the goals of the present study.
6. Conclusion
The main aim of this paper was to report whether or not children in EFL settings make use of negotiation strategies as their
ESL counterparts do. We analyzed the oral interaction of 80 children following two different approaches in the study of
foreign languages, namely, mainstream EFL and CLIL. The main difference between the two approaches lies in the fact that
CLIL learners are exposed to more hours of the foreign language because, besides their English language classes, they also
learn about content subjects in English. In addition to this, the type of methodology used in the classroom is also different and
it has been claimed to be more interactive and engaging for the learners.
The research reported was framed within the interactionist framework (Long, 1996) whose underlying assumption is that
interaction is beneficial for the L2 learning process (as document in previous research and two meta-analyses). Our findings
indicate that both CLIL and EFL children do use negotiation strategies while completing a picture placement task but the 3rd
and 5th CLIL learners outperform their 3rd and 5th EFL counterparts in their use of conversational adjustments and repe-
titions. They also made less use of their shared L1 while completing the task, which would point to a better command of the
foreign language and a better use of conversational devices to move the task along. These findings would be in line with
claims by Mun ~ oz (2008, 2014a, 2014b) that learning context could be a mediating factor in L2 acquisition. The input char-
acteristics the learners in CLIL programs are exposed to are likely to be the factor determining their better command of
conversational adjustments.
When comparing children of different school levels following the same methodological approach, that is, 3rd vs. 5th CLIL
and 3rd vs. 5th EFL, the older groups in both settings used fewer conversational adjustments and fewer repetitions. The fact
that the group of 10e11 year olds in both EFL and CLIL settings uses fewer conversational adjustments might be explained
assuming that they are moving towards a point in their development when these negotiation moves are not necessary
because the learners' linguistic abilities allow them to understand each other while resolving the task without difficulties. In
any case, this finding would go along with the general trend identified by Oliver (2000) that negotiation moves drop when
there is a better command of the language.
An unexpected finding when comparing 3rd vs. 5th year learners in both settings is the higher use of the L1 by the older
learners. At this point, and without information from learners' motivation questionnaires, we can only speculate on the basis
of the older learners' reaction to the task that it might have been a bit easy/childish for them, which could be a possible reason
for their frequent reliance of their shared L1 as well as for the lower occurrence of communication difficulties and corre-
sponding lower need to negotiate.
It should be clear that in this paper no claim has been made about whether actual learning has taken place on the basis of
the conversational adjustments made by the learners, as a different design would have to be used to answer that question.
What it would seem from the findings reported on in this study is that the methodological approach, CLIL or EFL, plays a very
important role in providing children with the tools to be able to negotiate meaning and use conversational adjustments.
However, and as mentioned at the beginning of this paper, our study is a modest beginning on a fascinating subject, child
interaction in foreign language settings, which is clearly under-researched.
The findings reported here open several interesting lines for further research and also bear important pedagogical im-
plications. Our results come from just one task, a picture placement task, which has yielded different results between contexts
and ages. An area of further research of impact for teaching practices would be to use different tasks to assess whether
negotiation of meaning and/or L1 use varies depending on the nature of the task. Also, motivation questionnaires need to be
designed to assess whether the learners' motivation towards the task used has an impact on their negotiation patterns and
whether the tasks used are age-appropriate. As mentioned above, it is necessary to maximize opportunities for learning,
particularly in low-input contexts such as EFL and, therefore, tuning the task to the learners' needs and capacities would be a
sine qua non condition to successfully implement communicative tasks in the classroom.
Interesting research could also be done on negotiation training (along the lines of Fujii, Mackey, & Ziegler, 2011), as being
aware of negotiation moves could benefit the way both EFL and CLIL learners collaborate during task completion. Thus,
practitioners could teach their students about how to overcome communication difficulties in order to maximize their
learning opportunities when they carry out interactive tasks. A further area in need of research is the children's patterns of L1
use, frequency and functions of that use. In any case, the fact that all learners in the present study, in spite of their low levels of
competence and young age, have been able to interact in English in order to resolve the task leads us to conclude that
interactive tasks deserve a place in EFL lessons, as they will give children opportunities to use the oral language meaningfully
and, hopefully, to move forward in their language learning process. In fact, given the teacherestudent rations in EFL settings,
only if children can interact with their peers will they really have opportunities for meaningful oral production on a regular-
basis in the otherwise ‘low-output’ EFL setting.
Acknowledgments
The two authors gratefully acknowledge the funding from research grant FFI2012-32212 (Spanish Ministry of Economy and
Competitiveness). The first author also acknowledges funding from IT311-10 (Basque Government) and UFI11/06 (University of
the Basque Country, UPV/ EHU). Thanks also go to Vicente Nún ~ ez Anto
n (Department of Econometrics and Statistics, University
of the Basque Country) for his assistance with the statistical analysis. Last, but not least, our sincere thanks to the schools that
allowed us to gather the data reported in this paper and to the teachers and children who participated in the study.
Appendix
Poster student A (original in color)
Poster student B (original in color)
References
n Soler, E., & García Mayo, M. P. (2008). Focus on form and learning outcomes with young learners in the foreign language classroom. In J. Philp, R.
Alco
Oliver, & A. Mackey (Eds.), Child's play? Second language acquisition and the younger learner (pp. 173e192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ball, P., & Lindsay, D. (2010). Teacher training for CLIL in the Basque country: the case of the Ikastolas e an expediency model. In D. Lasagabaster, & Y. Ruiz de
Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain (pp. 162e182). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Basterrechea, M., & García Mayo, M. P. (2013). Language-related episodes during collaborative tasks: A comparison of CLIL and EFL learners. In K. McDo-
nough, & A. Mackey (Eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 25e43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Butler, Y. Go., & Zeng, W. (2014). Young foreign language learners' interactions during task-based paired assessments. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11,
45e75.
Cameron, L. (2003). Challenges for ELT from the expansion in teaching children. ELT Journal, 57, 105e112.
Celaya, M. L., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). First language and age in CLIL and non-CLIL contexts. International CLIL Research Journal, 1, 60e66.
Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: toward a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. The International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 10, 543e562.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content-and-language-integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content and language integrated learning: from practice to principles. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182e204.
Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R., & Kubanek, A. (2006). The main pedagogical principles underlying the teaching of languages to very young learners. Brussels:
European Commission.
Enever, J. (Ed.). (2011). ELLie: Early language learning in Europe. London: British Council.
Eurydice European Network. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Brussels: European Commission.
Ferna ndez Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 21, 40e58.
Fujii, A., Mackey, A., & Ziegler, N. (2011). Metacognitive instruction and learning through task-based interaction. Paper presented at TBLT Conference. New
Zealand: University of Auckland.
Gallardo del Puerto, F., Go mez Lacabex, E., & García Lecumberri, M. L. (2009). Testing the effectiveness of content and language integrated learning in foreign
language contexts: the assessment of English pronunciation. In R. Jime nez Catala
n, & Y. Ruiz Zarobe (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning.
Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 63e80). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
García Mayo, M. P. (Ed.). (2007). Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
García Mayo, M. P., & Alco n Soler, E. (2013). Input, output. The interactionist framework. In J.Herschensohn, & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), The handbook of
second language acquisition (pp. 209e229). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
García Mayo, M. P., & Basterrechea, M. (2015). CLIL and SLA: Insights from an interactionist perspective. In A. Llinares, & T. Morton (Eds.), Applied linguistic
perspectives on CLIL. Amsterdam: John Benjamins (in press).
García Mayo, M. P., & Lecumberri, García (Eds.). (2003). Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
García Mayo, M. P., & Villarreal Olaizola, I. (2011). The development of suppletive and affixal tense and agreement morphemes in the L3 English of Basque-
Spanish bilinguals. Second Language Research, 27, 129e149.
Jimenez Catala n, R., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2009). Content and language integrated learning. Evidence from research in Europe. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Keck, C. M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: a
quantitative meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris, & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91e131). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Kerstin Sylve n, L. (2013). CLIL in Sweden e why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across contexts in Europe. International Journal of Bilingualism
and Bilingual Education, 16, 301e320.
Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated learning courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 31e42.
Lazaro Ibarrola, A. (2012). In what aspects are CLIL learners better than EFL learners? The case of morphosyntax. International Journal of English Studies, 12, 79e96.
Lazaro, A., & Azpilicueta-Martínez, R. (2015). Investigating negotiation of meaning in EFL children with very low levels of proficiency. International Journal of
English Studies (in press).
Lazaro Ibarrola, A., & García Mayo, M. P. (2012). L1 use and morphosyntactic development in the oral production of EFL learners in a CLIL context. Inter-
national Review of Applied Linguistics, 50, 135e160.
Leeman, J. (2007). Feedback in L2 learning: responding to errors during practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in second language learning. Perspectives from
linguistics and psychology (pp. 111e138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lloyd, P. (1991). Strategies used to communicate route directions by telephone: comparisons of the performance of 7-year olds, 10-year olds, and adults.
Journal of Child Language, 18, 171e189.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/nonnative speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126e141.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T. Bathia (Eds.), Handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 413e468). San Diego: Academic Press.
Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P. (2010). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: key findings from the Andalusian
bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics, 31, 418e442.
Loshky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crooks, & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory
and practice (pp. 123e167). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Mackey, A. (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. (2011). Interactionist approaches. In S. Gass, & A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7e23). New
York: Routledge.
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: a meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second
language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407e452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A., & Silver, R. E. (2005). Interactional tasks and English L2 learning by immigrant children in Singapore. System, 33, 239e260.
McDonough, K. (2004). Learner-learner interaction during pair and small group activities in a Thai EFL context. System, 32, 207e224.
Menyuk, P., & Brisk, M. E. (2005). Language development in education: Children with varying language experiences. London: Palgrave.
Mun ~ oz, C. (Ed.). (2006). Age and the rate of foreign language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Mun ~ oz, C. (2008). Symmetries and asymmetries of age effects in naturalistic and instructed L2 learning. Applied Linguistics, 29, 578e596.
Mun ~ oz, C. (2014a). Exploring young learners' foreign language learning awareness. Language Awareness, 23, 24e40.
Mun ~ oz, C. (2014b). Contrasting effects of starting age and input on the oral performance of foreign language learners. Applied Linguistics, 35, 463e482.
Nikolov, M., & Mihaljevi c Djigunovic, J. (2006). Recent research on age, second language acquisition and early foreign language learning. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 26, 234e260.
Nikolov, M., & Mihaljevi c Djigunovi c, J. (2011). All shades of every color: an overview of early teaching and learning of foreign languages. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 31, 95e119.
Oliver, R. (1998). Negotiation of meaning in child interactions. The relationship between conversational interaction and second language acquisition. The
Modern Language Journal, 83, 372e386.
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom pairwork. Language Learning, 50, 119e151.
Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 97e111.
Oliver, R. (2009). How young is too young? Investigating negotiation of meaning and feedback in children aged five to seven years. In A. Mackey, & Ch Polio
(Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 135e156). New York: Routledge.
Pen~ ate Cabrera, M., & Bazo Martínez, P. (2001). The effects of repetition, comprehension checks, and gestures on primary school children in an EFL situation.
ELT Journal, 55, 281e288.
Philp, J., Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (Eds.). (2008). Child's play? Second language acquisition and the younger learner. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Philp, J., & Tognini, R. (2009). Language acquisition in foreign language contexts and the differential benefits of interaction. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 47, 245e266.
Piaget, J. (1926/1955). The language and thought of the child. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Pica, T. (1987). Second language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8, 3e21.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: what does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44,
493e527.
Pica, T. (2013). From input, output and comprehension to negotiation, evidence and attention: an overview of theory and research on learner interaction in
SLA. In M. P. García Mayo, J. Gutierrez, & M. Martínez Adri an (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 49e70). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in the communicative languages classroom: a comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In S.
M. Gass, & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 115e132). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Pica, T., Kang, H., & Sauro, S. (2006). Information gap tasks: their multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 11, 63e90.
Pica, T., Sauro, S., & Lee, J. (2007). Three approaches to focus on form: A comparison study of their role in SLA processes and outcomes. Paper presented at the
Second Language Research Forum. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Pinter, A. (2006). Verbal evidence of task related strategies: child versus adult interactions. System, 24, 615e630.
Pinter, A. (2007). Some benefits of peer-peer interaction: 10-year-old children practicing with a communication task. Language Teaching Research, 11,
189e207.
Pinter, A. (2011). Children learning second languages. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2008). CLIL and foreign language learning: a longitudinal study in the Basque country. International CLIL Research Journal, 1, 60e73.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and
second language learning (pp. 97e114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
n, & M. P. Safont (Eds.
Tognini, R., & Oliver, R. (2012). L1 use in primary and secondary foreign language classrooms and its contribution to learning. In E. Alco
), Language learners' discourse in instructional settings (pp. 53e78). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Van den Branden, K. (1997). Effects of negotiation of on language learners' output. Language Learning, 47, 589e636.
Van den Branden, K. (2000). Does negotiation of meaning promote reading comprehension? A study of primary school classes. Reading Research Quarterly,
35, 426e443.
Van den Branden, K. (2008). Negotiation of meaning in the classroom. Does it enhance reading comprehension? In J. Philp, R. Oliver, & A. Mackey (Eds.),
Second language acquisition and the younger learner. Child's play? (pp. 149e169) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Do Children Negotiate For Meaning in Task-Based Interaction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Do Children Negotiate For Meaning in Task-Based Interaction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Do Children Negotiate For Meaning in Task-Based Interaction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

System xxx (2015) 1e15

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Do children negotiate for meaning in task-based interaction?

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 945013036; fax: þ34 945 013201.

2.1. Negotiation of meaning in a second language (L2)

(1) NS English: did you get high marks? Good grades?

(3) NNS: up there is cupboard … up there.

2.2. Child interaction

2.3. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)

2.4. Communicative tasks

And the following hypotheses were advanced:

4. Material and methods

4.2. The task

4.3. Data collection and codiﬁcation procedures

(4) Clariﬁcation request

(5) Conﬁrmation checks

(6) Comprehension checks

(7) CHILD 1: what is … is a ball?

(8) CHILD 1: but a bit more to the right

(9) Child 1: is a boy .. play .. eh … play a football in the park?

5. Results and discussion

3rd EFL 5th EFL 3rd CLIL 5th CLIL

Conv. Adj. Repetition L1 use

3rd CLIL 3rd EFL

Fig. 1. 3rd CLIL vs. 3rd EFL.

Conv. Adj. Repetition L1 Use

5th CLIL 5th EFL

Fig. 2. 5th CLIL vs. 5th EFL.

Conv. Adj. Repetition L1 use

3rd EFL 5th EFL

Fig. 3. 3rd EFL vs. 5th EFL.

Conv. Adj. Repetition L1 use

3rd CLIL 5th CLIL

Fig. 4. 3rd CLIL vs. 5th CLIL.

(10) Learner A: what?

(13) (it's done). (5th EFL)

Poster student A (original in color)

Poster student B (original in color)

You might also like