Speaker
Abstract section 2: Contribution/research questions
This study will explore how meaning can be co-constructed by L2 speakers of different linguistic backgrounds through discussion in English in small self-directed groups after an EMI lecture. The researcher will look into whether students naturally gravitate toward discussing the most important content from the lecture, or if they tend to focus on whatever confused them most, regardless of whether that content actually matters. This distinction is crucial for language teachers and content lecturers.
Abstract section 4: Outcomes/results
Prior research suggests that L2 learners tend to focus on comprehension gaps rather than consolidating what they have understood. This study anticipates confirming that bias while demonstrating that structured peer discussion anchored by note-sharing can redistribute comprehension across the group, improving content understanding, listening development, and meaning-negotiation skills. When students verbalize explanations to peers, they are compelled to actively construct knowledge rather than dwell on individual gaps. Data from discussions will inform a note-sharing template to be piloted on a larger scale the following term. All data will be anonymised, securely stored, and used solely for research purposes.
Abstract section 3: Content/method
Over one semester, six to twelve freshmen enrolled in an EMI course will take part in the experiment. They are native speakers of Japanese or Chinese, intermediate learners of English, arranged in mixed-L1 groups to ensure English serves as the common language. Ten 30-minute discussion sessions comprising three components: individual editing of the notes taken during the lecture for the discussion, a 20-minute audio-recorded small-group discussion in English, and a short individual post-test are scheduled.
Abstract section 1: Relevance
Language learners acquire a target language to communicate, making interaction a central mechanism of learning, not merely its outcome. Early SLA theories treated comprehension as passive, driven by exposure to comprehensible input (Krashen, 1981). This view has since been challenged: interactionist approaches emphasise negotiated meaning and corrective feedback as drivers of development (Gass & Mackey, 2015), while sociocultural perspectives frame meaning as actively co-constructed through dialogue (Swain, 2000). Recent research confirms that linguistic alignment between interlocutors are meaningful learning mechanisms across diverse contexts (Zhou etal., 2025; Kim &Michel, 2023). Nevertheless, the precise conditions under which meaning is co-constructed remain underexplored.
Abstract section 5: References
Kim, Y., & Michel, M. (2023). Linguistic alignment in second language acquisition: A methodological review. System, 115, 103007.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition. Second language learning, 3(7), 19-39.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2015). Second language research: Methodology and design. Routledge.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. Sociocultural theory and second language learning, 97(1), 97-114.
Zhou, S., Fung, D., & Thomas, N. (2025). Towards deeper learning in EMI lectures: The role of English proficiency and motivation in students’ deep processing of content knowledge. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 46(7), 1749-1764.
| Title | From Gaps to Gains in L2 Peer Interaction |
|---|---|
| Teaching Context | College and university education |