Group work in EFL: constructing zones of learning

Main Article Content

José David Herazo Rivera

Abstract

There seems to be agreement amongst EFL researchers that group work is one of the most important interactional contexts for promoting communication in the EFL classroom. However, the reasons underlying this accord cannot be taken for granted and still need closely scrutiny. The present study attempts to provide some arguments in favor of group work and the ways in which it may be implemented as a potentially rich zone for EFL learning. For this, the discussion has been framed by the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and the way group work can generate interaction .within it. Based on this, the study includes an analysis of group work from a communicative, a cognitive, and a social-affective perspective which introduces the concepl of revoicing as a key interactional process that seems lo link these three perspectives and allows students' utterances to become mediating devices in their in-group learning process. Other concepts like inter subjectivity, frameworks of interaction, and power relations are also discussed.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Section
Artículo corto de resultados preliminares de investigación
Author Biography

José David Herazo Rivera, Coorporación Universitaria del Caribe (Sincelejo)

Magister en educación, especialista en la enseñanza del ingles.

Teacher at Coorporación Universitaria del Caribe (Sincelejo)

References

COTTRELL, S. (1999)

The Study Skills Handbook. Londres: Macmillan study Guides

CROOKES, G. And GASS, S. (1993)

Tasksand Language Learníng. fntegroting Theory and Practice. Multilingual ,Matters.

DUDLEY-MARLEY, C & SEARLE, D. (1991)

When Students Hove time to to/k: creating contexts far Leorning Longuage. USA: Heinemann.

ERICKSON, F. (1996)

«Going for the Zone: the social and cognitive ecology of teacher-student interaction in c1assroom conversatian». In HICKS, D. Ced.).

Discourse Learning and Schooling. Cambridge University Press.

GEE, J. P. (1996)

(Nygotsky and Current Debates in Educatían: so me dilemmas as afterthoughts to Discourse, Learning, and Schooling». In HICKS, D. Ced.).

Discourse Learning ond Schooling. Cambridge University Press.

HERAZO, J. (2000).

The lone of Proximo! Devefopment and Leaming to Communicate in Smafl group Interaction. Unpublished MA dissertation.

ILOLA, L., Kikuyo Matsomotu and George Jacobs,(1995)

«Structuring Student interaction to Pro mote Learning». Kral 1. (Ed.), Creative English Forum, 1989-1993. Washington.

L1GHT80WN, P. M. & SPADA, Nina (1999)

How Longuoges are Learned. Hong Knog: Oxford University Press.

LONG, M & PORTER, P. (1985).

«Group work, Interianguage Talk, and Second Language Acquisition». TesolQuorterfy, Vol. 19, N° 2.

MALAMAH-THOMAS, A (1987)

Classroom fnteraction. Oxford University Press. MOLL, L. (Ed). Vygatsky ond Educatían.Cambridge University Press.

O'CONNOR, M. & MICHAELS, S. (1996)

«Shifting participant frameworks: orchestrating thinking pradices in group discussion». In HICKS, D. (ed.). Discourse Learning and Schooling.

Cambridge University Press.

RIVERS, W.M. (1987)

«Interaction as the key to teachíng Language far communication». In W. M. Rivers (ed.), fnteroctive Longuoge Teaching. Cambridge University Press.

VAN L1ER, L. (1996)

Interactian in the Language Currículum: Awareness, Autonomy, ond AuthentiÓty. CN. Candlin CG. Ed). Longman: Nueva York.

Most read articles by the same author(s)