A Complex Systems Investigation Of Group Work Dynamics In L2 Interactive Tasks

A Complex Systems Investigation
of Group Work Dynamics in L2
Interactive Tasks
GLEN POUPORE
Minnesota State University, Department of English, 230 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN, USA
Email: glen.poupore@mnsu.edu
Working with Korean university-level learners of English, this study provides a detailed analytical com-
parison of 2 task work groups that were video-recorded, with 1 group scoring very high and the other
relatively low based on the results of a Group Work Dynamic (GWD) measuring instrument. Adopt-
ing a complexity theory (CT) perspective and utilizing what Dörnyei (2014) has termed a retrodictive
qualitative modeling (RQM) approach to research, the study sought to identify how various elements
interacted to inluence the emerging GWD patterns. Based on different layers of data from the GWD
measuring instrument, affect-related state questionnaires, interviews, and extracts from the transcribed
interaction, the signature dynamics for a strong and weak GWD related to a combination of (a) positive
and negative GWD behaviors, (b) affect-related states in the form of motivation, emotional state, and
perceived dificulty, (c) critical moments in the interaction, and (d) the system’s initial conditions, which
were characterized by speciic task characteristics and the learners’ affective states just prior to begin-
ning the task. Acting as key control parameters in the shaping of GWD outcomes were task conditions
associated with the use of imagination, planning time, humorous content, dificulty level, and multiple
task outcomes.
Keywords: group dynamics; affect; complex dynamic systems; motivation; task-based language teaching
AN INCREASINGLY WIDESPREAD PRACTICE
in the ield of language teaching is the use of
group work, part of a pedagogical paradigm that
is characteristic of task-based, project-based, and
cooperative learning methodologies (Becket &
Chamness Miller, 2006; McCafferty, Jacobs, &
Dasilva Iddings, 2006; Willis & Willis, 2007). These
practices are supported by a body of pedagogical
research that has highlighted its linguistic, cogni-
tive, emotional, motivational, and social beneits
(Crandall, 1999; Leaver & Kaplan, 2004; Stoller,
2006). In second language acquisition (SLA) re-
search, these practices are further supported from
both cognitive and sociocultural perspectives,
which have shown that the interaction and collab-
oration generated through group work can pro-
vide the input and output conditions necessary
The Modern Language Journal, 00, 0, (2018)
DOI: 10.1111/modl.12467
0026-7902/18/1–21 $1.50/0
C
National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
Associations
for language development and the supportive
social scaffolding for the joint construction of
language knowledge (Lantolf Poehner, 2008;
Long, 1996; Swain, 2005). However, these ben-
eits are in many ways dependent upon a well-
functioning group environment with a positive
socioemotional climate. When a small group of
learners is assembled in a language learning task,
an intangible group energy emerges that can ei-
ther facilitate or impede the learning beneits that
it may engender.
Speciically, educational psychology and the
ield of language education are increasingly rec-
ognizing the critical role of affect and emotions
in the learning process. As a group of leading SLA
scholars have recently stated as part of their list
of principles for a transdisciplinary framework,
“emotion and affect matter at all levels” (The
Douglas Fir Group, 2016, p. 36). Supporting this
axiom is recent research from the ield of neu-
roscience. Puchta (2013), for instance, explained
that while our brains undergo a form of direct
and physical change during the act of learning,

2 The Modern Language Journal 00 (2018)
such a change is most powerful when emotions
are actively present and that “the more the brain
changes through such neural activity, the more
our students will remember, the more they will
learn, and the more the brain itself will develop”
(p. 48). Similarly, Schumann (1998) has found
that when language learners experience positive
affect, there is a concurrent and more active cog-
nition. These insights relect the consensus in
neuroscience that emotion and cognition are in-
extricably linked. As Okon–Singer et al. (2015)
concluded in response to indings from brain
imaging research, emotional responses, whether
positive or negative, “can strongly inluence key
elements of on-going information processing, in-
cluding selective attention, working memory, and
cognitive control” (p. 8). Similarly, Frederikson
(2004), through her ‘broaden and build’ the-
ory of positive psychology, stipulated that positive
emotions broaden the attentive mind and help to
build a more open, diverse, creative, and active
thinking process.
Emotions are socially embedded and are es-
pecially aroused in interpersonal interactions
(Imai, 2010). As second language (L2) learners
are increasingly involved in interactive tasks,
often within the social context of a small group, it
becomes essential to understand how the socioe-
motional dynamic within the group is shaped and
how it can lead to positive learning outcomes. The
purpose of this study is to examine group work
dynamic (GWD) through a comparative analysis
of two work groups performing an interactive
task, with one exhibiting a very positive dynamic
and the other a much weaker dynamic. Based on
work in the ield of small group communication
(Beebe Masterson, 2014), GWD is here deined
as the socioemotional climate that exists within
a small work group and the degree to which it
exhibits a genuine sense of warmth, trust, cheer-
fulness, and accomplishment. In addition, the
investigation adopts a complexity theory (CT)
perspective (Larsen–Freeman Cameron, 2008)
under the assumption that groups and the GWD
that emerges within them are complex systems;
a result of the interaction among and between a
multitude of elements related to learner-speciic,
group-speciic, learning-situational, and task-
related factors. The speciic aim of the study,
therefore, is to identify how these various el-
ements within each work group interacted to
produce each GWD pattern and/or outcome
and then determine the mixture of elements that
may act as a prototype for a strong dynamic on
the one hand and a weak dynamic on the other.
Before proceeding to outline the speciics of the
study’s methodology, some background about
research in group dynamics and complex systems
is in order.
GROUP DYNAMICS
Referring to Lewin (1951), generally taken as
the irst researcher to study groups scientiically,
Forsyth (2014) deines the concept of group dy-
namics as the actions, processes, and changes that
occur in social groups. A key element of group ac-
tions and processes is communication. It is criti-
cal because, as Beebe and Masterson (2014) ex-
plain, the purpose of group communication is to
reduce the inherent uncertainty that exists in a
group context. Uncertainty is represented by the
group members’ sense of not knowing what will
happen in the group and what others in the group
will do or say. The only way to reduce such uncer-
tainty is through communication.
The ield of small group communication has
identiied a series of key communicative behav-
iors that help to shape a group’s social dynamic.
Building on Hersey and Blanchard’s (1992) the-
ory of situational leadership, Beebe and Master-
son (2014) distinguish task-oriented and group
maintenance-oriented leadership behaviors. Task-
oriented behaviors refer to actions aimed at ac-
complishing task goals and keeping the group
on track. In turn, group maintenance-oriented
behaviors relate to increasing group cohesive-
ness and maintaining a positive socioemotional
climate. From a small group communication per-
spective, shared leadership is an important crite-
rion when considering the effectiveness of these
leadership behaviors. Small groups with shared
leadership experience less conlict, a higher level
of consensus, and greater trust and cohesion than
those without it (Bergman et al., 2012). Other
key communicative behaviors identiied by Beebe
and Masterson (2014) are supportive rather than
defensive communication, conirming (e.g., of
one’s value) rather than disconirming communi-
cation, and active rather than passive listening.
A group’s dynamic is signiicantly inluenced
by nonverbal communication, which, unlike ver-
bal messages, is continuous and always present
in oral communication (Richmond, McCroskey,
Hickson, 2012). Furthermore, from a socioe-
motional perspective, nonverbal communication
is signiicant because it primarily serves an affec-
tive or relational function. According to one re-
search study, approximately 93% of emotions are
communicated nonverbally (Mehrabian, 1972).
In her review of nonverbal communication stud-
ies in L2 classrooms Quinslisk (2008) argues

Glen Poupore 3
that “behaviors such as gesturing, eye contact,
smiling, head nodding, and vocal variety not only
express emotive states, but also increase impres-
sions of likeability, trust, warmth, and approach-
ability” (p. 31). Not surprisingly, such nonverbal
affect-related cues and impressions act as key be-
haviors in the development of positive group dy-
namics. Together with task-oriented and group
maintenance-oriented behaviors they were impor-
tant elements in the construction of the group
work dynamic measuring instrument used in the
study.
In language education, group dynamics have
thus far received relatively little attention. Based
on a study by Clément, Dörnyei, and Noels
(1994) that found a correlation between whole
class group dynamics and L2 motivation, Dörnyei
(1994) incorporated group cohesiveness and
group norms into his overall theoretical con-
ception of L2 motivation. This was followed by
other works by Dörnyei and his colleagues that
presented a theory of group dynamics for the
L2 learning context and practical suggestions on
how to promote group cohesiveness (Ehrman
Dörnyei, 1998; Dörnyei Murphey, 2003).
More recently, in a large-scale study that looked
at the relationship between group dynamics and
L2 motivation in the Asian context of Taiwan,
Chang (2010) identiied a correlation between
the processes of group cohesiveness and group
norms and motivational variables related to learn-
ers’ self-eficacy and autonomy. Joe, Hiver, and
Al-Hoorie (2017) found a relationship between
classroom social climate, self-determined motiva-
tion, willingness to communicate, and L2 achieve-
ment among Korean secondary school leaners of
English.
Studies such as these have focused primarily
on whole class group dynamic rather than small
group work dynamic. One exception is the study
by Poupore (2016), which involved the measure-
ment of group work dynamic (GWD) and its re-
lationship with learners’ task motivation and lan-
guage production. Based on an analysis of 30
work groups, the results indicated that groups
with a strong GWD had higher levels of motiva-
tion with regard to enjoyment, effort, sense of suc-
cess, and perceived relevance and that they also
produced more language. Nonverbal communi-
cation played a particularly important role in the
shaping of GWD: It accounted for 59% of GWD-
related behaviors and was also responsible for
the signiicant correlations with task motivation.
While the study helped to provide a better under-
standing of GWD within the context of L2 interac-
tive tasks, it operated with a quantitative analytical
lens based on statistical correlations. However, an
analysis of GWD that is capable of revealing the
intricacies that are at play in a group’s emerging
social dynamic requires a perspective that views
GWD as a complex social system that is best un-
derstood by examining how its many dynamic and
interacting elements come together to create the
system as a whole. As Webb and Palinscar (1996)
state, understanding the complexity that exists in
educational work groups “will make it possible to
offer meaningful recommendations for the im-
provement of educational practice” (p. 868).
COMPLEXITY THEORY
While complexity theory (CT) originated in
the physical sciences (Kaufman, 1995), it is in-
creasingly being applied within the social sciences
(Byrne Callaghan, 2014). It is also gaining cur-
rency in the ield of language learning, includ-
ing the process of L2 development (Verspoor,
de Bot, Lowie, 2011), L2 motivation (Dörnyei,
MacIntyre, Henry, 2015), and classroom ped-
agogy (Mercer, 2013). As Williams, Mercer, and
Ryan (2015) explain, CT operates under the basic
premise that “in order to understand something,
we need to look at all the parts of the system to
which it belongs and their varying interactions”
(p. 156). The distinguishing features of a complex
system, whether it be a inancial market, a school
system, the language learning process, or group
dynamics, are their complexity (numerous inter-
acting elements that are constantly reacting to
each other to produce a uniied whole) and their
dynamism—both the elements and the system it-
self are in a constant state of change as they adapt
to their environment. Through this process of co-
adaptation or self-organization, furthermore, the
system reaches what is known as an attractor state,
deined by Hiver (2015) as a “pattern, solution,
or outcome toward which a system settles down
or approaches over time” (p. 20). Within a com-
plex system and its attractor states, stability and
variability co-exist due to the system’s openness,
dynamism, and many interacting elements: There
are forces or elements of stability that help to
maintain the attractor state, but there are also el-
ements of variability that are constantly present.
With enough strength, the latter can push the sys-
tem out of its current condition, leading to what
is referred to as a phase shift, and move it into
a new attractor state. In this way a complex sys-
tem is nonlinear, inasmuch as change may not be
proportional to the input, and therefore unpre-
dictable. Another characteristic of complex sys-
tems is the importance of initial conditions, that

is, how the system is set up through its many vari-
ables as it commences the activity. In addition,
Larsen–Freeman (2015) notes that systems that
have different initial conditions, no matter how
small they may be, will follow different trajecto-
ries and reach different outcomes. This is so be-
cause within these conditions may lie the system’s
control parameters, which constitute the key set
of forces or constraints that guide the system into
a particular attractor state.
To give an example, when L2 learners come to-
gether as a small group to perform an interac-
tive task, they essentially form a complex system
as does the socioemotional climate or GWD that
will emerge within the group. It will include a mul-
titude of dynamic and interacting elements: (a)
the learners’ internal cognition, motivation, and
affect, (b) the group interaction and the learn-
ers’ verbal and nonverbal behaviors, (c) the task
instructions and speciic task characteristics, (d)
the composition of the group, (e) the social re-
lationships that exist between the group mem-
bers, (f) the inluence of the teacher, (g) the
whole class dynamic, (h) the physical space, and
(i) other contextual and sociocultural factors. It
is not possible to predict in advance what the
GWD outcome will be, but we do know that it
will self-organize as a result of the interacting el-
ements. It will move into an attractor state of
dynamic stability or possibly experience phase
shifts and move into different attractor states
in ways that will lead to a stronger or weaker
GWD. Assuming an attractor state in which a
group has reached a positive GWD, some ele-
ments and initial conditions, such as the task’s
interesting content and group members’ high
level of enjoyment, will act as forces of stability.
Other elements and initial conditions, such as
the task’s high level of dificulty, one group mem-
ber’s considerable anxiety, and another group
member’s opinionated comment during interac-
tion, may act as forces of variability that could
change the GWD into a more negative overall
state.
RESEARCHING COMPLEX SYSTEMS
Adopting a CT approach to research presents
a challenge since one cannot rely on traditional
scientiic research approaches that are based
on reductionism, prediction, and single causal
variables. A CT perspective not only creates a new
way of viewing how things function, it also creates
a need to adopt new approaches to research.
Larsen–Freeman and Cameron (2008) pro-
posed what they termed a “complexity thought
modelling” approach that is framed around the
following guidelines (pp. 70–71): (a) Identify the
different elements of the system and describe the
relations among them, (b) Describe the dynamics
of the system: Is it a form of dynamic stability or
are there sudden phase shifts? (c) Describe the
trajectory of the system: What patterns emerge
from the process of self-organization? (d) De-
scribe what happens around attractor states:
What kind of variability exists around stabilities?
How stable and deep are the attractor states? (e)
Identify candidate control parameters (i.e., initial
conditions that act as key factors in the shaping
of the system’s outcomes).
Similarly, Hiver and Al-Hoorie (2016) have pre-
sented a “dynamic ensemble” for CT research that
includes many of the same guidelines, including
a focus on identifying the interaction of elements
or signature dynamics producing the system’s out-
comes.
In response to guidelines such as these, Dörnyei
(2014) has proposed a retrodictive qualitative
modelling (RQM) approach which “reverses the
usual research direction by starting at the end—
the system outcomes—and then tracing back
to see why certain components of the system
ended up with one outcome and not another”
(p. 80). The approach, therefore, focuses on
“retro-diction” and retrospection rather than the
“forward-pointing ‘pre-diction’ in scientiic re-
search” (p. 85). Acknowledging that the indings
that are obtained through an RQM approach
would inherently be nongeneralizable, as the ini-
tial conditions of any complex system will always
be different, Dörnyei argues that they could still
be relevant and applicable to other similar situa-
tions: “The self-organization capacity of dynamic
systems would suggest that the emerging proto-
types and outcome patterns … are suficiently ro-
bust to be recognizable in a variety of contexts”
(pp. 89–90). In this way, therefore, CT research
based on RQM can provide a dynamic description
of how things work in reality and at the same time
offer potential transferability to other similar con-
textual situations.
While a CT approach emphasizes the impor-
tance of including as many elements as possible
in its analysis, CT theorists recognize the practi-
cal need of limiting the focus of investigation to
a “select range of contextual features within a sin-
gle ecosystem and to investigate their dynamic in-
terplay with the focal elements” (Ushioda, 2015,
p. 52). In line with such thinking, the present
study has limited its focus to elements operating
within the task work group such as learner in-
ternal affect, the verbal and nonverbal behaviors

Glen Poupore 5
produced during the group interaction, and the
task characteristics.
To summarize, the present study follows recom-
mended CT research guidelines, takes the RQM
approach, and delimits the analysis of GWD to
its essential focal elements. As a follow-up to
Poupore (2016), which examined 30 task work
groups from the same cohort of students over
the course of one semester, it closely analyzes the
GWD of 2 of the 30 work groups, with one group
exhibiting a strong GWD and the other a weak
GWD. Following the RQM retrodictive approach,
the starting point will be the system’s outcomes
based on the resulting GWD scores obtained for
each group with the GWD measuring instrument
developed in the original study. By comparing the
results for each group, key verbal and nonverbal
GWD behaviors will be identiied as making the
critical difference. A second layer of analysis ex-
amines the learners’ and groups’ affect at the pre-,
during, and post-task stages. A third layer of anal-
ysis draws on data from interviews with some of
the learners that were conducted after the tasks,
observation notes by the teacher–researcher, and
key excerpts from the transcribed interaction that
represented critical moments in the shaping of
GWD for each group. Because one of the stu-
dents participated in both of the targeted work
groups, the analysis also provides a comparison
of data between the groups as a whole as well as
on her individual behaviors and responses to each
task.
The following research questions guide the
study:
RQ1. What are the key sets of elements, rep-
resented in the learners’ internal affec-
tive states, the learners’ verbal and non-
verbal behaviors, and task characteristics,
that combined and interacted to create the
strong GWD outcome pattern for the one
group and the weak GWD outcome pat-
tern for the other?
RQ2. What level of dynamism exists within each
outcome pattern and what variability exists
around stabilities?
RQ3. Among the system elements, which initial
conditions acted as key control parameters
in the shaping of each GWD outcome pat-
tern?
METHOD
Research Setting and Participants
Data for the study were collected within the
context of a normal classroom session with a
group of 10 students in a conversation course that
was part of a 20-week TESOL certiicate program
at a Korean university. The conversation course
took place twice a week in the early afternoon for
50-minute periods.
The class of 10 Korean students consisted of
7 females and 3 males with a mean age of 28.3
and a range from 24 to 33. All participants had
completed an undergraduate degree and were in-
terested in obtaining an oficial teaching certii-
cate in order to teach English. Focusing specif-
ically on the students that formed part of the
two work groups under investigation, Table 1 and
Table 2 indicate their biographic background.
Mina was the student who took part in both group
work tasks.
Teacher perceptions of English proiciency
were obtained at the end of the 20-week pro-
gram and were based on a consensus that was
reached between the teacher–researcher and an-
other instructor who also taught the students. As
indicated in the two tables, each work group had
participants with a variety of proiciency levels;
Mina had the lowest proiciency rating in both
groups.
Group Work Tasks
Group 1 performed its task in Week 10 of the
semester while Group 2 did so in the following
class in Week 11. Both tasks were based on the
same episode of the popular American sitcom
Friends entitled The One after the Super Bowl Part 2.
TABLE 1
Biographic Proile of Group 1 Students
Name Gender Age
Teacher Perception
of Proiciency
Proiciency
Test Score
English-Speaking
Country Exposure
Mina Female 27 Low-intermediate NA No
Sujin Female 32 Intermediate TOEIC 780 No
Hyung Male 28 High-intermediate TOEIC 830 Yes (8 months)
Note. TOEIC = Test of English for International Communication.

TABLE 2
Biographic Proile of Group 2 Students
Name Gender Age
Teacher Perception
of Proiciency
Proiciency Test
Score
English-Speaking
Country Exposure
Mina Female 27 Low-intermediate NA No
Bomi Female 34 High-intermediate TOEIC 840 No
Taena Female 25 Advanced TOEFL PBT 577 Yes (1 year)
Note. TOEIC = Test of English for International Communication.
Group 1 Task: Friends Sitcom: Questions and An-
swers. After receiving background information
about the sitcom and the episode in written form,
each learner in the group was given time to write
four questions on a task sheet that he/she thought
would be answered by the end of the episode.
Learners then formed their group in which they
would (a) each share their questions and choose
the three best as a group, and (b) predict answers
to their three selected questions.
Group 2 Task: Friends Sitcom: Solutions to Chan-
dler’s Problem. After the students had watched
the episode up to and just prior to showing the
ending scene, students were presented with a
task sheet instructing them to ind solutions
to a problem faced by one of the characters
named ‘Chandler’ who found himself naked
and stranded in a restaurant bathroom without
access to any clothes. The task instructions were
as follows: In your group, brainstorm at least 3
interesting and creative solutions to Chandler’s
problem. Students were given individual thinking
time to brainstorm their solutions before joining
their group.
Group 1 completed its task in 21 minutes and
42 seconds while Group 2 completed its task in 12
minutes and 29 seconds.
Audio-Video Recordings and Transcription
In order to accustom the students to the pres-
ence of the audio-video recorders, the equipment
was introduced into the classroom at the begin-
ning of the semester and was also used with two
tasks prior to their use with the 15 targeted tasks
and 30 work groups that were part of the origi-
nal study (Poupore, 2016). The recordings were
transcribed based on conventions introduced by
Markee (2000) and Richards (2003) and included
both verbal and nonverbal communication. The
transcription proceeded in the following steps:
(1) First viewing: transcribe all verbal lan-
guage including vocalized backchannel-
ing (e.g., uh-huh, yeah) and laughter;
(2) Second viewing: transcribe nonverbal fa-
cial elements such as smiling and head
nods;
(3) Third viewing: transcribe other nonver-
bal elements such as body movements and
gestures;
(4) Fourth viewing: transcribe eye contact ele-
ments.
After all tasks were transcribed, GWD scores were
calculated based on the GWD measuring instru-
ment.
Group Work Dynamic Measuring Instrument
A GWD measuring instrument was designed as
part of the original study in order to obtain a com-
prehensive account of a group’s social dynamic.
A list of characteristics and/or behaviors that
were thought to inluence GWD, both positive
and negative and both verbal and nonverbal, was
formulated based on different sources, including
the ields of small group communication (Beebe
Masterson, 2014), nonverbal communication
(Richmond et al., 2012), and cooperative learn-
ing (Johnson, Johnson, Holubec, 2008). The
teacher–researcher added further characteristics
to the instrument through the processes of watch-
ing the audio-video recordings and transcribing
them. Since different behaviors have varying de-
grees of inluence on GWD as well as varying de-
grees of frequency, numerical weights were then
assigned to each characteristic. For instance, the
positive verbal characteristic of a humorous joke
was given a higher weighting than asking for clar-
iication since it is assumed that it will have a
greater positive effect on GWD. Characteristics
with a high frequency of occurrence, such as the
positive nonverbal characteristics of listener feed-
back, speaker eye contact, and listener eye con-
tact, were given lower weightings in order to en-
sure that they would not disproportionately con-
tribute to overall GWD scores.
The instrument was then subjected to a re-
view process focused on the appropriateness of
each characteristic, their assigned weighting, and

Glen Poupore 7
TABLE 3
List of Positive GWD Characteristics
Characteristic Weight Characteristic Weight
Verbal Nonverbal
Leadership direction 3 Clapping hands 3
Positive remarks 3 Loud laughter 2.5
Jokes 3 Touching 2
Providing help 3 Mild laughter 1.25
Contributing ideas 2 Smiling 1
Asking for others’ ideas 2 Leaning (toward another group member) 1
Asking for clariication 1 Gestures of excitement, interest, or focus 0.75
Asking for help 1 Listener feedback (interjections, head nodding) 0.25
Speaker eye contact 0.20
Hand gestures when speaking 0.20
Listener eye contact 0.15
TABLE 4
List of Negative GWD Characteristics
Characteristic Weight Characteristic Weight
Verbal Nonverbal
Negative remarks 3 Yawning 2
Decision without checking for agreement 3 Sighing 2
Sarcastic or cynical humor 3 Negative sounds 1
Saying something but being ignored 3 Negative gestures 0.75
Incoherent responses 2 Negative laughter and/or smile 0.5
Irrelevant responses 2 Speaker non–eye contact 0.15
Rushing the task 2 Listener non–eye contact 0.05
Foul language 2 Pausing ***
Refusing or avoiding to share
ideas/information
2
Impersonal responses 1
Superiority responses 1
Cutting a speaker off 1
Overlap talk 0.3
Off-task talk *
Group member exclusion **
Note. * Off-task talk of 30–34 seconds = 3; 35–39 seconds = 3.5; etc.; ** Exclusion of 1–20 seconds = 3; 21–40 seconds =
6; etc.; *** Pauses of 10–12 seconds = 2; 12–14 seconds = 3; and so forth.
to their cultural relevancy given the Korean
context. The reviewers included two colleagues
from the ield of applied linguistics; two Korean
English learners that were not part of the study;
and two English teachers, one Korean and one
English native-speaking. Based on their feedback,
some items were deleted from the instrument
while some of the weightings were either in-
creased or decreased. To further ensure proper
weighting for each characteristic, furthermore, a
close monitoring process was undertaken as GWD
scores were calculated for each task. For exam-
ple, it was revealed that both speaker and listener
eye contact, despite the low weighting that was
originally assigned to them, were still somewhat
disproportionately contributing to overall GWD
scores; accordingly, their weightings were fur-
ther decreased. Through this monitoring process,
the weightings for other characteristics were also
either lowered or increased. The inalized list of
positive GWD characteristics and their weightings
is outlined in Table 3 while the list of negative
characteristics and their weightings is outlined in
Table 4. A more detailed presentation of the GWD
measuring instrument, including deinitions and
examples for each characteristic, is available as
supplementary Web-based material on the Modern
Language Journal website.

Total GWD scores for each group were calcu-
lated based on the difference between the positive
characteristics and the negative characteristics.
In order to account for time differences between
the tasks, totals for each characteristic, and in
turn total GWD, were adjusted to 15 minutes.
After GWD scores had been calculated for all of
the task work groups by the teacher–researcher,
an external observer, a Korean English teacher,
rated the GWD for 10 of the 30 work groups based
on a 9-point scale. A Pearson product–moment
correlation revealed a signiicant relationship
between the researcher’s scores and the external
observer’s scores (r = .697, p = .025). However,
it is important to acknowledge that the mea-
surement of GWD, particularly with regard to
nonverbal behaviors, will inherently involve a
degree of subjectivity. It is also important to
mention that the GWD instrument is exploratory
in nature and that it is in many ways conditional
in the sense that its features and characteristics
will vary depending on the speciic cultural and
educational setting in which it is used.
Affect-Related States Questionnaire
For each task, the participants illed out a se-
ries of three questionnaires at the pre-, during,
and post-task stages that measured their task mo-
tivation, emotional state, and perceived task difi-
culty. The pre- and post-task questionnaires were
adapted from Boekaerts (2002), which enabled a
dynamic comparison between the two stages of
the task. A list of the speciic variables and sub-
variables on each questionnaire, including the
number of question items for each, represented
in parentheses, is outlined in Table 5.
The pre-task questionnaire was administered
to the learners just prior to beginning the task
and after receiving task instructions. The post-
task questionnaire was administered immediately
after task completion and before groups pre-
sented their results to the whole class.
The during-task questionnaire consisted of two
graphs on the same page: one measuring learn-
ers’ current level of interest, that is, their moti-
vation, and the other their level of comfort, that
is, their emotional state. Each graph contained
a vertical axis with the numbers 1 to 5 and the
question ‘How interested are you in this task at
this moment?’ for the motivation graph and the
question ‘How comfortable do you feel at this mo-
ment?’ for the emotional state graph. The hori-
zontal axis represented time and contained the
ordinal numbers 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th, which
represented the different time points during the
task. At roughly 5-minute intervals, the teacher–
researcher signaled to the learners to put a dot
on each graph in order to indicate their current
state of interest and comfort level.
All three questionnaires were piloted with a
group of Korean university learners prior to their
use in the study; this led to the addition of a Ko-
rean translation to some of the items. The ques-
tionnaires were also used with two classroom tasks
prior to their use with the tasks for the study. In-
terviews with the participants at the end of the
semester indicated that, while the questionnaires
took a little adjusting to at irst, learners quickly
became accustomed to them and felt that they
were a routine part of the course.
Interviews
Five of the ten students from the class partic-
ipated in interviews with the teacher–researcher
following the completion of each task. Selection
was based on their willingness to volunteer, time
availability, variety in proiciency level, and the
possession of a certain willingness to communi-
cate. With regard to the two tasks that are the fo-
cus of this study, Mina and Sujin from Group 1
TABLE 5
Affect-Related States Questionnaire Items
Pre-Task Questionnaire Post-Task Questionnaire
Variables Sub-Variables Variables Sub-Variables
Total motivation (10) Task attraction (4) Total motivation (9) Task enjoyment (3)
Intended effort (3) Reported effort (3)
Success expectation (2) Result assessment (2)
Task relevance (1) Task relevance (1)
Emotional state (7) Emotional state (9)
Task dificulty (2) Task dificulty (1)

Glen Poupore 9
and Mina and Bomi from Group 2 took part in the
interviews. In order to give the interviewees time
for relection and to help ease any feelings of anx-
iety, they illed out a questionnaire prior to the
interview, which asked them the following ques-
tions:
(1) How did you like the task and why?
(2) How dificult or easy was the task and why?
(3) How comfortable or anxious did you feel
while doing the task and why?
(4) How did you like the topic of the task and
why?
All interviews and questionnaires were conducted
in English and on an individual basis in an empty
classroom and ranged from 5–15 minutes. The in-
terviews were recorded and transcribed and to-
gether with their answers on the pre-interview
questionnaire were processed for content analy-
sis.
RESULTS
Group Work Dynamic Measuring Instrument
Group Comparison. Among the 30 work groups
that were measured, Group 1 registered the 3rd
highest GWD score with a total of 427.62 while
Group 2 registered the lowest score with a total
of 91.15. The two groups were selected because of
the contrasting results and also because one of the
participants was a member in both groups. The
average score for all 30 work groups was 281.23.
Figure 1 and Table 6 outline the speciic differ-
ences in scores between Group 1 and Group 2.
What is particularly noticeable is the relatively
high number of negative GWD behaviors exhib-
ited by Group 2.
Table 7 shows the differences in results for
each GWD characteristic. The numbers represent
TABLE 6
Differences in GWD Scores: Group Comparison
Group Work
Dynamic Group 1 Group 2 Difference
Positive
characteristics
464.47 350.44 +114.03
Negative
characteristics
36.85 259.29 −222.44
Total 427.62 91.15 +336.47
the total amount of points while the numbers in
parentheses represent the total number of times
that the characteristic or behavior was produced
by the group. As mentioned previously, both the
points and the behavior were adjusted to 15 min-
utes of task time. Those characteristics with at
least an 8-point difference (rounded out) in fa-
vor of Group 1 (Group 1 score subtracted by the
Group 2 score) have been highlighted in bold.
Regarding the positive characteristics, the
largest difference related to the greater number
of ideas that were contributed by the members
in Group 1. The irst group also had a lot more
humor and generated more positive nonverbal
behaviors in the form of laughter; smiling; ges-
tures that exhibited excitement, interest, and/or
heightened focus (e.g., the sudden straightening
of one’s back or rolling up one’s sleeves); the lean-
ing in toward each other; and the clapping of
hands. In relation to the negative characteristics,
while Group 1 exhibited very few, if any, negative
behaviors, Group 2 produced all of them, partic-
ularly negative remarks (e.g., complaining, judg-
ing, showing a defensive attitude, etc.); refusing
to share answers; incoherent responses; exclud-
ing group members from the discussion; and non-
verbal behaviors in the form of extended silence
FIGURE 1
Group Work Dynamic Scores for Group 1, Group 2, and the Average Score for All 30 Groups

TABLE 7
Differences in GWD Scores for Each Characteristic: Group Comparison
Group Work Dynamic Characteristics Group 1 Group 2 Difference
Positive characteristics: verbal
Leadership direction 36.87 (12.29) 50.47 (16.82) −13.60
Contributing ideas 65.55 (32.78) 33.64 (16.82) +31.91
Positive remarks 40.97 (13.66) 39.65 (13.22) +1.32
Jokes 22.53 (7.51) 7.21 (2.40) +15.32
Asking for clariication 4.10 (4.10) 7.21 (7.21) −3.11
Providing help 10.24 (3.40) 10.81 (3.60) −0.57
Asking for help 3.41 (3.41) 2.40 (2.40) +1.01
Asking for others’ ideas 8.19 (4.10) 19.23 (9.61) −11.04
Positive characteristics: nonverbal
Listener feedback 21.51 (86.04) 13.52 (54.07) +7.99
Mild laughter 59.75 (47.80) 49.57 (39.65) +10.18
Loud laughter 44.39 (17.75) 27.04 (10.81) +17.35
Clapping hands 14.34 (4.78) 3.60 (1.20) +10.74
Smiling 25.27 (25.27) 7.21 (7.21) +18.06
Leaning 25.27 (25.27) 10.81 (10.81) +14.46
Gestures of excitement 43.02 (57.36) 26.13 (34.85) +16.89
Hand gestures when speaking 3.55 (17.75) 7.45 (37.25) −3.90
Touching 0.00 (0.00) 2.40 (1.20) −2.40
Speaker eye contact 21.03 (105.16) 20.43 (102.14) +0.60
Listener eye contact 14.48 (144.76) 11.66 (116.56) +2.82
Negative characteristics: verbal
Negative remarks 0.00 (0.00) 57.68 (19.23) −57.68
Decision without checking 0.00 (0.00) 7.21 (2.40) −7.21
Refusing to share 0.00 (0.00) 7.61 (3.80) −7.61
Rushing 0.00 (0.00) 4.81 (2.40) −4.81
Incoherent responses 0.00 (0.00) 14.42 (7.21) −14.42
Irrelevant responses 0.00 (0.00) 2.40 (1.20) −2.40
Cutting a speaker off 9.56 (9.56) 6.01 (6.01) +3.55
Overlap talk 2.46 (8.19) 3.60 (12.02) −1.14
Group member exclusion 0.00 (0.00) 39.65 (9.61) −39.65
Negative characteristics: nonverbal
Negative laughter and/or smile 0.00 (0.00) 7.21 (14.42) −7.21
Sighing 0.00 (0.00) 24.03 (12.02) −24.03
Negative sounds 0.00 (0.00) 15.62 (15.62) −15.62
Negative gestures 0.51 (0.68) 12.62 (12.82) −12.62
Speaker non–eye contact 7.89 (52.58) 12.62 (84.11) −4.73
Listener non–eye contact 7.55 (150.91) 10.56 (210.28) −3.01
Pausing 8.88 (3.41) 33.64 (9.61) −24.76
within the group (pausing), sighing, the produc-
tion of annoying sounds, and gestures indicat-
ing that one is annoyed, bored, nervous, and/or
stressed. Also noteworthy is the 8-point difference
in favor of Group 1 with respect to the amount
of listener feedback (e.g., the use of interjections
and/or head nodding), therefore indicating a
greater degree of focused attention within the
group.
Interestingly, leadership direction, deined for
the study as a behavior that guides or directs the
group toward accomplishing the goals of the task
(e.g., “Let’s share our questions”), was not a fac-
tor. This is a somewhat surprising result given that
such behavior is considered to be an important el-
ement in group dynamics. Indeed, Group 2 even
produced a slightly higher number of incidences.
Mina Comparison. Table 8 shows the differ-
ences in Mina’s GWD contributions for each
group and highlights a distinct contrast in her be-
haviors. The percentage data indicate the contri-
bution provided by Mina in comparison to her
two group members. It becomes clear that she
was more positively engaged in Group 1 with
a signiicantly larger number of positive GWD
behaviors, which accounted for 40% of her
group’s positive contributions compared to her

Glen Poupore 11
TABLE 8
Differences in GWD Scores: Mina Comparison
Group Work Dynamic Mina Group 1 % Mina Group 2 % Difference
Positive characteristics 186.56 40 45.70 13 +140.86
Negative characteristics 11.71 46 60.13 33 −48.42
Total 174.85 40 −14.43 −9 +189.28
TABLE 9
GWD Scores for Characteristics With an 8-Point Difference: Mina Comparison
Group Work Dynamic Characteristics Mina Group 1 % Mina Group 2 % Difference
Positive characteristics: verbal
Leadership direction 8.19 (2.73) 22 0.00 (0.00) 0 +8.19
Contributing ideas 20.49 (10.24) 31 4.81 (2.40) 14 +15.68
Positive remarks 18.44 (6.15) 45 0.00 (0.00) 0 +18.44
Positive characteristics: nonverbal
Mild laughter 22.19 (17.75) 37 10.51 (8.41) 21 +11.68
Loud laughter 35.85 (14.34) 81 3.00 (1.20) 11 +32.85
Leaning 10.24 (10.24) 41 1.20 (1.20) 11 +9.04
Gestures of excitement 23.05 (30.73) 54 3.60 (4.81) 14 +19.45
Negative characteristics: verbal
Negative remarks 0.00 (0.00) — 10.81 (3.60) 19 −10.81
Refusing to share 0.00 (0.00) 7.61 (3.80) 100 −7.61
Negative characteristics: nonverbal
Sighing 0.00 (0.00) — 16.82 (8.41) 70 −16.82
minimal amount in Group 2 with only a 13%
contribution. In relation to her overall contribu-
tions in Group 2, the negative contributions out-
weighed the positive for a negative overall GWD
score.
Characteristics of her behaviors with at least an
8-point difference (rounded out) are outlined in
Table 9.
In terms of positive verbal characteristics,
Mina’s relatively strong percentage contributions
in Group 1 showed a noticeable difference com-
pared to Group 2, especially for contributing
ideas and positive remarks. Positive nonverbal
percentage contributions were also high in Group
1 with clear contrasts with Group 2 in the amount
of laughter and other nonverbal forms of engage-
ment. While the identiied negative behaviors are
nonexistent in Group 1, there are considerable
contributions in Group 2 with relatively high con-
tribution rates for the group. In sum, while Mina
was an important positive force in Group 1, she
was a signiicant negative force in Group 2.
Affect-Related State Questionnaires
Group Comparison. Table 10 displays the aver-
age group scores for each of the affective vari-
ables for both groups at both the pre- and post-
task stages. In this way, the table allows for both a
comparison across groups and across time.
Beginning with the pre-task, the results show
that Group 1 entered the task more highly mo-
tivated, particularly with regard to task attrac-
tion, intended effort, and success expectation.
They were also in a more positive emotional state.
Both groups perceived the task to be dificult at
about the same level. Let us recall that from a CT
perspective, learners’ affective state just prior to
beginning the task assumes a high level of impor-
tance since it functions as part of the initial con-
ditions that can have a signiicant inluence on
GWD and task outcomes.
The same differences are also evident after the
students had inished the task. Unlike at the pre-
task, however, students in Group 2 had a notice-
ably higher degree of perceived task dificulty
compared to Group 1. Noteworthy as well is the
considerable drop in perceived dificulty from the
pre-task to the post-task for Group 1 at more than
2 points. From the Group 1 perspective, there-
fore, the task was a lot less dificult than originally
perceived.
The during-task results reveal the same patterns
with students in Group 1 consistently feeling more

TABLE 10
Group Mean Score Comparison for Affect-Related State Variables at the Pre- and Post-Task Stages
Pre-Task Stage Post-Task Stage
Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2
Variables Mean Mean Difference Mean Mean Difference
Total motivation 4.31 3.25 +1.06 4.74 3.67 +1.07
Task attraction/enjoyment 4.75 3.50 +1.25 4.89 3.67 +1.22
Intended effort/reported effort 4.56 3.22 +1.34 4.89 3.78 +1.11
Success expectation/result assessment 3.33 2.33 +1.00 4.33 3.33 +1.00
Task relevance 4.33 4.00 +0.33 4.67 4.00 +0.67
Emotional state 4.24 3.76 +0.48 4.89 4.33 +0.56
Task dificulty 3.78 3.67 +0.11 1.67 2.67 −1.00
TABLE 11
Group Mean Score Comparison for Affect-Related State Variables at the During-Task Stage
During-Task Time 1 During-Task Time 2 During-Task Time 3
Variables Group 1 Group 2 Difference Group 1 Group 2 Difference Group 1 Group 2 Difference
Interest 4.67 3.67 +1.00 5.00 3.67 +1.33 4.67 3.67 +1.00
Comfort level 4.67 4.00 +0.67 5.00 4.33 +0.67 4.67 4.33 +0.34
interested and emotionally comfortable at each
of the three time periods during the task (see
Table 11).
From start to inish, therefore, the Group 1
students repeatedly reported being more moti-
vated and in a more positive emotional state in
comparison to the Group 2 students. Motivation-
ally, they enjoyed the task more, were more inter-
ested, gave more effort, and had a greater sense
of success. From a dynamic perspective, moreover,
while group 1 demonstrated an upward trend in
their interest level, group 2 remained stagnant.
Mina Comparison. As a group member who
played a critical role in shaping the GWD in each
group, identifying Mina’s internal state is of par-
ticular interest. At the crucially important pre-task
stage, Mina felt more motivated in Group 1 (see
Table 12).
What is especially evident is that she entered the
Group 2 task with a much lower anticipation of
success as well as a lower degree of conidence in
the relevance of the task. Her emotional state was
also considerably lower in Group 2, and she be-
gan the task feeling that it was relatively dificult.
It is therefore apparent that Mina was both mo-
tivationally and emotionally quite different at the
start of the Group 2 task.
Contrasts at the post-task time frame are even
more in evidence, with considerable differences
between the two tasks in all the affective variables.
This is especially the case with Mina’s sense of how
dificult the Group 2 task was, showing a 3-point
difference compared to the irst task. Comparing
the pre- and post-task results for Group 2, Mina
experienced a decrease in her affective state for
most variables. In Group 1, by contrast, Mina in-
creased her level of motivation from what was al-
ready a high level.
The during-task data show the same compara-
tive trends. As Table 13 indicates, there are clear
differences between the two group tasks at each
time period in which Mina felt more interested
and comfortable, often with a 2-point difference.
While her interest was steadily high for the irst
task, moreover, there was a downward trend for
the second task.
Interview Data
Group 1 Task. For Group 1, Mina and Sujin
participated in the post-task interviews. Sujin re-
ferred to her familiarity with the Friends sitcom as
reasons for liking the task and for not perceiving
the task to be too dificult. She often mentioned
her group members and the group atmosphere
as additional factors: “A good group atmosphere
existed in my group because each member had a
good idea, creative idea, we did the task in a good
mood.” Sujin also acknowledged that she “could

Glen Poupore 13
TABLE 12
Mina Score Comparison for Affect-Related State Variables at the Pre- and Post-Task Stages
Pre-Task Stage Post-Task Stage
Variables
Group 1
Score
Group 2
Score Difference
Group 1
Score
Group 2
Score Difference
Total motivation 4.58 4.08 +0.50 4.67 3.33 +1.34
Task attraction/enjoyment 5.00 4.50 +0.50 4.67 2.67 +2.00
Intended effort/reported effort 4.67 4.33 +0.34 5.00 4.00 +1.00
Success expectation/Result assessment 4.00 3.00 +1.00 4.00 3.00 +1.00
Task relevance 5.00 4.00 +1.00 5.00 4.00 +1.00
Emotional state 4.86 3.14 +1.72 4.89 3.22 +1.67
Task dificulty 2.67 4.33 −1.66 1.00 4.00 −3.00
TABLE 13
Mina Score Comparison for Affect-Related State Variables at the During-Task Stage
During-Task Time 1 During-Task Time 2 During-Task Time 3
Variables Group 1 Group 2 Difference Group 1 Group 2 Difference Group 1 Group 2 Difference
Interest 5.00 4.00 +1.00 5.00 3.00 +2.00 5.00 3.00 +1.00
Comfort level 5.00 3.00 +2.00 5.00 3.00 +2.00 5.00 3.00 +2.00
Note. Since the Group 2 task was shorter than the Group 1 task and only included three time periods, the fourth time
period results for the Group 1 task are not included.
imagine a lot of creative things about the task” and
that it made her “feel more interested.”
Likewise, Mina had favorable views toward the
task and the group. She primarily liked the task
because it provided an opportunity for “mak-
ing stories” and “make me stimulate my imagina-
tive power.” In reference to her own and to her
group’s emotional state, she indicated that “if we
have dificulty in making stories, we didn’t feel
comfortable, but our member did a good job …
therefore, I felt comfortable and happy while do-
ing the task.”
Based on the views provided by Mina and Su-
jin, therefore, we can identify a few key elements
that enabled the group to have a positive GWD.
First, the group was able to generate a lot of cre-
ative ideas in order to satisfy task outcomes. There
was a good and constant low of ideas and the task
was not viewed as dificult. From Sujin’s perspec-
tive, her familiarity with the sitcom helped her to
feel comfortable and conident. For Mina, mean-
while, the opportunity to use her imagination and
to successfully create and share her ideas with the
group facilitated a strong interest and positive en-
ergy while performing the task.
Group 2 Task. Mina and Bomi were the inter-
viewees for the Group 2 task. Bomi did not have
much to say about the task, but she did have
an overall favorable view because it “makes us to
imagine pleasant and funny things.” She acknowl-
edged, however, that she found the task dificult,
and this led her to not like the task as much as
she could have. With respect to the group atmo-
sphere and without stating whether it was good
or bad, she did indicate that “one person doesn’t
give answer or doesn’t give solution.” The person
in question was Mina.
Like Mina stated for the Group 1 task, she liked
the fact that the Group 2 task also provided an op-
portunity for coming up with creative ideas and
“making stories.” This time, however, she was un-
able to do so:
Making a story is interesting, but only if I have good
ideas ... I don’t know the reason why I could not think
about interesting answers ... last time I think about in
short time many things but today it’s different from
previous time. (Mina, Group 2 interview)
This state of affairs consequently made her feel
“annoyed” and frustrated as her “ideas seemed to
be just too normal” in a way where “creative think-
ing was not easy.” In relation to the group atmo-
sphere, she also did not have much to say but did
state that “other members did well even though
their answer was normal.” In this way, Mina not

only felt disappointed in the averageness of her
own ideas but also in that of her group members.
Mina and Bomi’s interview data, therefore, re-
veal some key elements that may have led to the
group’s less than positive GWD. Mina’s internal
response to the task appears signiicant as she
found it dificult to generate ideas and had little
conidence in her own and in her group’s sense
of success. Her sense of discomfort, frustration,
and disappointment, along with her inability or
perhaps her unwillingness to share her ideas with
the group, may also have triggered a negative re-
sponse in the other group members.
Transcription and Observation Notes
In order to obtain a closer view of what oc-
curred in each group, I now present sample ex-
tracts of the language and behaviors produced
by the group members. I provide as well my
own observation notes taken while observing and
transcribing the data. The following transcription
guidelines are used:
Parentheses = (listener feedback/interjections)
Brackets = [nonverbal behaviors]
* = laughter
** = louder than average laughter
Curly brackets = {observation notes}
Angle brackets = pauses of more than one
second
Group 1: Mina, Sujin, and Hyung, who are desig-
nated as M, S, and H in the transcript.
Group 2: Mina (M), Bomi (B), and Taena (T).
Group 1 Task. As the data from the GWD
measuring instrument, the affect-related states
questionnaire, and the interviews have indicated,
there was a very positive GWD in the group in
which many creative ideas were generated and
members felt motivated and energized. This was
evident right from the start and applied partic-
ularly to Mina and Hyung who were the irst to
share their created questions about the Friends
episode (see Excerpt 1).
What is obvious from this beginning is that
Mina and Hyung are very eager to share their
questions and that the group as a whole is produc-
ing a lot of nonverbal language that demonstrates
focused attention, excitement, and a positive and
humoristic mood through lots of laughter and
smiling. This positive dynamic essentially contin-
ues uninterrupted for the remainder of the task,
and particularly when they collectively begin to
construct humorous answers to their selected
questions.
Group 2 Task. As the results from the GWD
measuring instrument illustrated, Group 2
produced a weak GWD and exhibited a sub-
stantial amount of negative GWD behaviors.
Compared to Group 1, they also demonstrated
weaker levels of motivation and positive emotions.
EXCERPT 1:
H: Okay, let’s share our questions.
M: Yes.
H: My first question is where do Chandler and Suzie meet. (M: yeah) Another place.
And second one is why did Monica fall in love with Jean Claude Van Damme. (M:uuh)
{H seemed to be very eager from the start to get on with the task. M making very strong eye
contact with H.}
M: Because he is very handsome. [*]
H: Maybe. [smile] [S: smile]
M: And muscle. [**] [leans backward as she laughs; she is using hand gestures and is making
direct eye contact with H irst and then with S.] {She’s clearly excited.}
H: Yeah muscle. [smile and leans upper body forward] And what happened when they met,
connected to second question. [makes eye contact with both members] And fourth one,
what did Joey did, what did Joey do to make connections with movie industry. [makes
eye contact with M] That’s mine. [S hand on face) (M strokes her own hair]
M: Yes. [leans closer to H]
H: What’s yours?
M: In, in my case, [hand on cheek], my first question is, and now who does Marcel live
with. [eye contact with H and smile] {As she began to express herself, she sat up with
excitement to share her questions. After saying her sentence, she makes direct eye contact with
H with a smile on her face}
S: Muscle?
M: No Marcel the monkey. (H: ah) And now, and now, who does Marcel live with. And
second, how much money does Marcel to earn, [*]
H: That’s great. [*] [S: *]

Glen Poupore 15
EXCERPT 2:
T: Oh {Korean meaning ‘I feel cold’} 2.0 [B is looking at T’s answer sheet, T has her hands in her
pockets and she is rocking from side to side with head down and is slouching, M is buried in her sheet
and remains so for a few seconds]
B: Yeah, you ready make answers?
T: [gets up from her slouch] But I don’t have creative or even interesting. [returns to slouch] [*]
[B: **] 5.0 [T looks over at M’s sheet and then B’s sheet]
M: [strange sound with lips] Previous time, I have a lot of interesting stories, [*] [negative
laughter] [B writing while M is speaking]
T: ideas, yeah yeah.
M: but, today is not, a little difficult. 4.0 [T crosses arms and briely raises from her slouch,
makes a scratching throat sound, returns to slouch, lies down on desk]
From the interviews, we also learned that Mina
felt frustrated and disappointed in not being able
to contribute creative ideas or solutions to the
problem faced by the Chandler character in the
episode.
Unlike Group 1, Group 2 began the task with
less than enthusiastic energy (see Excerpt 2).
To be sure, this is not the best of starts as
both Mina and Taena immediately and overtly
state their pessimism about their own ideas. There
is also some extended pausing, implying a cer-
tain hesitancy within the group. Taena, moreover,
states that she feels cold, and her nonverbal be-
haviors suggest a lack of interest.
The interaction then continues as Bomi and
Taena share their ideas about possible solutions
to Chandler’s problem. While this is occurring,
Mina remains buried in her own worksheet. At
one point, Mina takes Taena’s worksheet without
asking and begins to read it with a serious face be-
fore announcing that Taena’s answers are “very
normal.” Eventually, Mina is asked to share her
ideas (Excerpt 3).
In this interaction, Mina is pushed to share her
ideas after initially communicating that she was
not ready. When she does, both Bomi and Taena
reject the value of her suggestion, and Mina con-
sequently reacts in a defensive manner.
Following this incident, the task proceeds for
much of the remaining time with Mina remain-
ing silent and for the most part excluded from the
discussion while Bomi and Taena formulate and
write down their ideas. Near the end of the task,
Mina is once again asked to provide her ideas, but
this leads to even more uncomfortable feelings
within the group (Excerpt 4).
This interaction contains at least four criti-
cal actions that negatively affected the group dy-
namic and the feelings of the group members:
(a) Taena’s attempt to see what Mina wrote on
her answer sheet without asking for her permis-
sion, (b) Mina’s defensive response by refusing to
let her do so, (c) Taena’s judgmental comment
about Mina, and (d) the forceful manner in which
Taena and Bomi pushed the ‘presenter’ duty onto
Mina. In many ways, these incidents further solid-
iied the negative GWD already present within the
group.
While Mina acted as a negative force in this
group, so did Taena. As I commented in my
observation notes after transcribing the group
interaction, “Taena was slouched most of the
time, was often impatient and idgety, appeared
uninterested, often spoke in a fast and incoherent
manner, and tried to rush the completion of the
task.” Based on the GWD data, furthermore, she
accounted for 50% of the group’s negative GWD
behaviors with particularly high percentage con-
tributions in the areas of negative remarks and
the production of negative gestures and sounds.
DISCUSSION
Framed within a CT perspective, the purpose of
this study was threefold: (a) to identify the differ-
ent constellation and interaction of elements that
led to the GWD outcome patterns for each of the
targeted work groups, (b) to determine the level
of dynamism and variability existing within each
of the outcome patterns, and (c) to identify the
key elements within each group’s initital condi-
tions, referred to as control parameters, that can
act as driving forces shaping the system outcomes.
The results for each group, with Group 1 acting as
a prototype for a strong GWD, and Group 2 as a
prototype for a weak GWD, are summarized in Ta-
ble 14 and Table 15, respectively.
The results demonstrated by Group 1 in many
ways represent the optimal combination and in-
teraction of elements for a positive GWD. These
begin with a high amount of positive GWD behav-
iors and a low amount of negative GWD behaviors.
For this particular group, the fundamental behav-
ioral features included the provision and sharing
of many ideas toward task accomplishment, atten-
tive listening through feedback, the presence of

EXCERPT 3:
T: How about yours?
M: Actually I didn’t finish. [*] {negative laughter} [M has head down in sheet when saying this, but T
and B looking directly at her]
T: Okay finish.
B: Just one?
M: One of friends catch, try to catch, (T: uuh) [M making eye contact with B, T is slouched down
near desk and is peering over at M’s sheet trying to read it; M has her hand resting on her neck]
B: Catch what?
M: Catch, Ju, Jul [looking down at sheets]
T: Julia Roberts.
M: yeah Julia Roberts, (B: aah) what is her name?
T: Su, Su, Suzy
B: But it takes a long time, [*] [T: *] [M: *] [T raises from her slouch as she laughs], maybe hours.
[*] {a form of rejection here of M’s idea}
T: [bangs the desk a couple times with ingernails before speaking to get attention] At the first stage
I thought that [but she doesn’t make eye contact as she speaks, then slouches]
M: Anyway, he, succeed. [*] [all making eye contact here]
T: To get out.
M: Yeah.
T: Even though she doesn’t have the clothes, [playing with hair] {nervously} she, if she has
already, thrown away. {another rejection of M’s idea} [T returns to slouch after inishing sentence]
B: Yeah, what if she throw away, her, his clothes 2.0 {conirming T’s rejection of M’s idea}
M: It’s a drama, [*] {negative laughter as she is trying to defend her idea} not a real situation. [all
heads are down after she says this, T then slouches]
EXCERPT 4:
B: Okay [looking at M, and T looks at M too], give your, just one solution that’s it. [T leaning
over toward M and is trying to see what M wrote on her sheet]
M: No, no, no, {Korean meaning ‘no’} {refuses to let T see her sheet} 3.0
T: She’s being serious, don’t be like that. [then slouches] {T is labeling M and her words lead to
what I perceive to be serious emotional tension and an uncomfortable environment}
M: [mumbling] [she was about to say something but then pulled back in her chair and removes herself
from group] 7.0 [T during this silent period leans toward B, puts hand on forehead and starts to
tap desk with ingernails to make annoying sound]
B: I have a, favor, [T still tapping but stops here] (T: uuh?) I have a favor to ask you. (T: uuh)
Be a speaker for us. [B smiles and makes a cool dance move to show her excitement]
T: [shaking her head no, then large sounding clap] [B: *] Rock, scissor, paper.
M: I am very serious [*] {negative laughter}, so, [has paper in front of face but moves it a little to see
other two members]
T: so you can be good speaker
M: Except me.
T: Why not? [looks directly at B looking for support]
B: Oh! I have really simple, [getting excited as she moves from side to side] solution (T: right)
for this, situation. (T: right) We, we made this,
T: Okay! Then she do! [both T and B pointing at M, T moving in chair in excitement] {M doesn’t look
pleased and remains silent for a few seconds}
humor and laughter, and the display of many pos-
itive nonverbal behaviors. Acting in combination
with these behaviors were group members’ inter-
nal affective states through high levels of motiva-
tion and a positive emotional state combined with
a relatively low perceived dificulty. The learners’
affect also demonstrated a level of dynamism from
pre- to post-task by not only maintaining a high
level but actually increasing it. In addition, learn-
ers’ perceptions of task dificulty demonstrated a
signiicant decrease. On an individual level, Mina
emerged as a powerful positive force in the irst
group through her positive affective state and
many positive and inluential GWD contributions.
The critical juncture for this group was the be-
ginning of the task, which helped to establish
a positive and steady GWD pattern. The group
members were eager to share their ideas, and
there was an active low to the discussion that
continued for the remainder of the task. Once
they began to collectively construct creative an-
swers to their selected questions, furthermore, the

Glen Poupore 17
TABLE 14
Interaction of Elements for Group 1: Prototype for a Strong GWD
High number of positive GWD behaviors combined with a low number of negative GWD behaviors
Key positive GWD behaviors: Contributing ideas toward accomplishment of task outcomes
Humor, laughter, facial smiling, and clapping
Gestures that exhibit excitement, interest, and/or focus
Group members leaning toward each other
Listener feedback
Key affect-related states: Consistently high and increasing motivation and positive emotional
state
Relatively low and decreasing sense of perceived dificulty from pre-
to post-task
Key contributions by an individual
group member (Mina):
High percentage contributions for positive remarks, laughter,
leaning, and gestures of excitement
Active engagement in the form of leadership direction,
contributing ideas, listener feedback, and smiling
Consistently high motivation and positive emotional state with
increasing motivation and decreasing perceived dificulty
Critical moments: Opening moments of the task in which group members feel
interested and energized to share their prepared ideas
Creating humorous answers to selected questions that were part of
the task
Key initial conditions: Affective state: high motivation, positive emotional state, and
relatively low perceived dificulty
Task conditions
Opportunity for learners to use their imagination
Predictive aspect
Multiple task outcomes requirement
Suficient amount of planning time
Humorous content
Content familiarity
Appropriate dificulty level
positive GWD that they had established became
even more solidiied, positioning themselves into
a stable, deep, and strong attractor state of posi-
tive group dynamics. This was maintained despite
some of the variability that existed within the sys-
tem, such as the lower amount of leadership di-
rection compared to Group 2 and the presence
of some minor negative GWD behaviors. Help-
ing to shape this deep attractor state were the sys-
tem’s initial conditions represented in the group’s
positive affective state just prior to beginning the
task and some key task characteristics. First, the
task enabled the learners to use their imagina-
tion to create questions and predict answers. A
suficient amount of individual planning time was
also given to generate the questions before stu-
dents began to share them. Familiarity with the sit-
com, its humorous content, and an optimal level
of dificulty also played a role. In addition, the
task contained two layers of expected outcomes,
irst creating and selecting questions and then
collaboratively predicting answers. This multiple
outcome condition created a situation that re-
quired the learners to contribute and share many
ideas.
The results for Group 2 represent the interplay
of factors leading to a weak GWD. In relation
to GWD characteristics, this group displayed a
substantial number of negative behaviors charac-
terized by judgmental, defensive, and complain-
ing comments; the production of incoherent
responses; moments of extended silence; group
member exclusion; sighing; and the use of neg-
ative gestures. Acting in conjunction with these
behaviors were the group’s comparatively low mo-
tivational and emotional condition throughout
the task, including a perception that the task was
dificult. Indeed, learners’ perceptions of task
dificulty experienced a change from a relatively
high level at the beginning of the task to an
even higher level by the end of the task. Playing
a particularly important role in the emergence
of the group’s weak GWD was Mina who was
essentially inactive for most of the task and who

TABLE 15
Interaction of Elements for Group 2: Prototype for a Weak GWD
Relatively low number of positive GWD behaviors combined with a high number of negative GWD behaviors
Key negative GWD behaviors: Negative remarks (complaining, judging, and defending)
Group member exclusion
Extended silence
Sighing and gestures exhibiting boredom, nervousness, and/or
stress
Incoherent responses
Key affect-related states: Relatively low and stable motivation and emotional state at all
stages, especially success expectancy
Relatively high and increasing perceived dificulty from pre- to
post-task
Low engagement by an individual
group member (Mina)
Low or nonexistent contributions in relation to leadership
direction, contributing ideas, positive remarks, and positive
nonverbal behaviors
Relatively low and decreasing motivation
Relatively high perceived dificulty
Key negative GWD contributions
by individual group members
(Mina and Taena):
Negative behaviors in the form of negative remarks, refusing to
share ideas, sighing, and other nonverbal forms of
communication (Mina)
High percentage contributions in the form of negative remarks,
incoherent responses, and negative sounds and gestures (Taena)
Critical moments:
Enforcing a duty onto a group
member
Opening moments of the task in which group members have low
affect and pessimistic attitude
Refusing to share ideas in a defensive manner
Rejecting a group member’s ideas
Judgmental comment
Key initial conditions: Affective state: relatively low motivation, especially success
expectancy; relatively low emotional state; and relatively high
perceived dificulty
Task conditions
Single task outcome requirement
Insuficient amount of planning time
Creativity pressure
Problem-solving requirement
High dificulty level
produced many of the group’s negative GWD
behaviors both in verbal and nonverbal forms.
Her affective state was also relatively low, particu-
larly her success expectation, as she experienced a
decrease in her overall motivation combined with
a signiicant increase in her perception of task
dificulty.
At the root of Mina’s negative behaviors and her
low affective condition was her inability and frus-
tration with developing and contributing ideas
for the task. Her refusal to share ideas with her
group members also triggered critical moments
in the task that helped to further deepen the
negative attractor state in the group. These crit-
ical incidences included the rejection of a solu-
tion proposed by Mina, a particularly hurtful and
judgmental comment aimed at Mina, and forc-
ing Mina to act as the group’s speaker. Unlike
Group 1, furthermore, the group began the task
with an unsure and pessimistic attitude and with
relatively low motivational energy levels. In this
way, Group 2 followed the opposite pattern estab-
lished by Group 1 by steadily descending into a
deep attractor state of negative group dynamics,
thus making it more dificult for the group to ex-
perience a phase shift toward a more positive dy-
namic. To be sure, there were elements of positive
variability within the system. The group demon-
strated higher amounts of leadership direction
compared to Group 1 and produced moderate
amounts of other positive verbal and nonverbal
GWD behaviors. Interviews with Bomi and Mina,
furthermore, showed that they did like certain ele-
ments of the task, particularly the humorous con-
tent and the opportunity to use their creativity
to come up with answers. The presence of these

Glen Poupore 19
positive elements of variability, however, were
dwarfed by the negative GWD behaviors and to-
gether with the identiied critical moments in the
interaction, were powerless to move the system
out of its negative GWD pattern.
Like Group 1, the group’s initial conditions
acted as important inluences. The motivational
and emotional state of the group were lower
than optimal and the task was viewed as dif-
icult. This was particularly the case with both
the group’s and Mina’s low success expectancy.
With respect to task conditions, the dificulty
of providing creative solutions to the problem
faced by the Chandler character proved prob-
lematic for this group of students. This may in-
dicate that the problem-solving task contained
a higher cognitive load compared to the more
structured prediction task for Group 1. The pres-
sure imposed by the problem-solving task to pro-
duce creative answers and perhaps a lack of
suficient planning time, despite the fact that
both tasks contained the same amount, may also
have acted as negative inluences. In compari-
son to the task for Group 1 that required two
layers of task outcomes, furthermore, this task
required only a single layer, which resulted in
fewer opportunities for ideas to be generated and
shared.
Playing a pivotal role in the emergence of both
GWD outcome patterns was nonverbal commu-
nication. Group 1 clearly outnumbered Group
2 in positive nonverbal behaviors while Group 2
signiicantly outnumbered Group 1 in negative
nonverbal behaviors. These indings support the
original study (Poupore, 2016), which demon-
strated the powerful inluence of nonverbal com-
munication on GWD and its correlation with task
motivation. Supporting Thornbury (2013), re-
search into L2 interactive tasks, therefore, needs
to go beyond the analysis of language and include
“non-linguistic systems, such as actions, gesture,
gaze, and body language” (p. 67).
Comparing Mina’s behaviors and affective
states in the Group 1 task with the Group 2
task also revealed the relevance of the affective–
cognitive link (Okon–Singer et al., 2015) and
Frederickson’s (2004) theory of positive psychol-
ogy. Mina clearly entered the Group 1 task with a
very positive affective condition that enabled her
to be attentive, engaged, and creative in the pro-
duction and sharing of her ideas. The exact op-
posite occurred in Group 2 in which she was un-
able to come up with ideas throughout the task
due to her low affective condition and the in-
creasingly negative GWD that emerged within the
group.
CONCLUSION
From a pedagogical perspective, instructors
need to ensure that learners enter a group task
with an optimal level of positive affect, particularly
with regard to success expectancy and perceived
task dificulty, while also paying close attention to
the task conditions since they may have a signii-
cant inluence on both task and GWD outcomes.
In addition, instructors need to make learners
aware of how their verbal and nonverbal behav-
iors can affect group dynamic. A good way to do so
would be to have learners watch videos of groups
performing tasks and to observe and note positive
versus negative behaviors with a particular empha-
sis on the inluence of nonverbal communication.
Through the CT and RQM research approach
that was adopted for this study, a dynamic and
rich description was obtained with regard to the
key combination of elements for both a posi-
tive and negative GWD while also observing el-
ements of variability surrounding the outcome
patterns. At the same time, it is important to ac-
knowledge limitations of the study. The investi-
gation was conducted within a speciic cultural
context and with speciic initial conditions, which,
from a CT perspective, will always be different
in different cases. The investigation also limited
its focus to rather immediate focal elements. A
better understanding of GWD as a complex sys-
tem would be obtained, for instance, by also an-
alyzing the inluence of broader learner internal
traits, such as cognitive aptitude, language learn-
ing anxiety, learning styles, and personality. An-
other limitation was the non-inclusion of broader
sociocontextual factors such as the prior social re-
lationships that existed among the group mem-
bers through the use of social network analysis
(Mercer, 2015) and examining the effects of
group member conigurations. Moreover, the
individual analysis focused on the contributions
of only one of the three group members. From
a CT perspective, the contributions and perspec-
tives of each group member are critical, thereby
calling for interviews with all group members, es-
pecially in the form of stimulated recall where
learners could observe themselves on video. Since
the two work groups in the present study did
not experience any signiicant phase shifts in
their GWD, it would be meaningful to investigate
groups that did, either moving from a positive to
a weaker GWD, or from a weaker to a stronger
GWD.
To better understand the use of interactive tasks
in the language classroom, it is imperative to ar-
rive at a good understanding of how they can lead

to positive group dynamics; to positive affect; and
ultimately to learners’ overall well-being, happi-
ness, and positive sense of self and identity. The
aim of this study was to arrive at such an under-
standing through a more accurate description of
a complex and dynamic reality.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I thank the editor and the reviewers for their sugges-
tions that helped to improve this article.
REFERENCES
Beckett, G. H., Chamness Miller, P. (Eds.). (2006).
Project-based second and foreign language education:
Past, present, and future. Greenwich, CT: Informa-
tion Age Publishing.
Beebe, S. A., Masterson, J. T. (2014). Communicating in
small groups: Principles and practices (11th ed.). New
York: Pearson.
Bergman, J. Z., Rentsch, J. R., Small, E. E., Davenport, S.
W., Bergman, S. M. (2012). The shared leader-
ship process in decision-making teams. The Journal
of Social Psychology, 152, 17–42.
Boekaerts, M. (2002). The on-line motivation question-
naire: A self-report instrument to assess students’
context sensitivity. In P. R. Pintrich M. L. Maehr
(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol.
12. New directions in measures and methods (pp. 77–
120). Amsterdam: JAI.
Byrne, D., Callaghan, G. (2014). Complexity theory and
the social sciences: The state of the art. New York: Rout-
ledge/Taylor Francis.
Chang, L. Y. (2010). Group processes and EFL learn-
ers’ motivation: A study of group dynamics in EFL
classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 129–154.
Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., Noels, K. A. (1994). Mo-
tivation, self-conidence, and group cohesion in
the foreign language classroom. Language Learn-
ing, 44, 417–448.
Crandall, J. (1999). Cooperative language learning and
affective factors. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in lan-
guage learning (pp. 226–245). Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the
foreign language classroom. Modern Language Jour-
nal, 78, 273–284.
Dörnyei, Z. (2014). Researching complex dynamic sys-
tems: ‘Retrodictive qualitative modeling’ in the
language classroom. Language Teaching, 47, 80–91.
Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P., Henry, A. (Eds.). (2015).
Motivational dynamics in language learning. Bristol,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z., Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the
language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
The Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary
framework for SLA in a multilingual world. Modern
Language Journal, 100 (Supplement 2016), 19–47.
Ehrman, M. E., Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Interpersonal dy-
namics in second language education: The visible and
invisible classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Forsyth, D. R. (2014). Group dynamics (6th ed.). Bel-
mont, CA: Wadsworth.
Frederickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build the-
ory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society of London, 359, 1367–1377.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H. (1992). Management of or-
ganizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (6th
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall.
Hiver, P. (2015). Attractor states. In Z. Dörnyei, P. Mac-
Intyre, A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in
language learning (pp. 20–28). Bristol, UK: Multi-
lingual Matters.
Hiver, P., Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2016). A dynamic ensem-
ble for second language research: Putting com-
plexity theory into practice. Modern Language Jour-
nal, 100, 741–756.
Imai, Y. (2010). Emotions in SLA: New insights from col-
laborative learning for an EFL classroom. Modern
Language Journal, 94, 278–292.
Joe, H.–K., Hiver, P., Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2017). Class-
room social climate, self-determined motivation,
willingness to communicate, and achievement: A
study of structural relationships in instructed sec-
ond language settings. Learning and Individual Dif-
ferences, 53, 133–144.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Holubec, E. J. (2008).
Cooperation in the classroom (8th ed.). Edina, MN:
Interaction Book Company.
Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe: The search for
the laws of self-organization and complexity. London:
Penguin.
Lantolf, J., Poehner, M. E. (2008). Sociocultural the-
ory and the teaching of second languages. London:
Equinox.
Larsen–Freeman, D. (2015). Ten ‘lessons’ from com-
plex dynamic systems theory: What is on offer.
In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre, A. Henry (Eds.),
Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 11–
19). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Larsen–Freeman, D., Cameron, L. (2008). Complex sys-
tems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Leaver, B. L., Kaplan, M. A. (2004). Task-based in-
struction in US government Slavic language pro-
grams. In B. L. Leaver J. Willis (Eds.), Task-
based instruction in foreign language education (pp.
47–66). Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Press.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York:
Harper.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment
in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie
T. J. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language ac-
quisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.

Glen Poupore 21
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
McCafferty, S., Jacobs, G. M., Dasilva Iddings, A.
C. (2006). Cooperative learning and second language
teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication.
Chicago: Aldine Atherton.
Mercer, S. (2013). Towards a complexity-informed ped-
agogy for language learning. Revista Brasileira de
Linguistica Aplicada, 13, 375–398.
Mercer, S. (2015). Social network analysis and com-
plex dynamic systems. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre,
A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in lan-
guage learning (pp. 73–82). Bristol, UK: Multilin-
gual Matters.
Okon–Singer, H., Hendler, T., Pessoa, L., Shack-
man, A. J. (2015). The neurobiology of emotion-
cognition interactions: Fundamental questions
and strategies for future research. Frontiers in Hu-
man Neuroscience, 9, article 58.
Poupore, G. (2016). Measuring group work dynamics
and its relation to L2 learners’ task motivation and
language production. Language Teaching Research,
20, 719–740.
Puchta, H. (2013). Engaging adult learners: What ELT
can learn from neuroscience and educational the-
ory. In J. Arnold T. Murphey (Eds.), Mean-
ingful action: Earl Stevick’s inluence on language
teaching (pp. 45–61). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Quinlisk, C. C. (2008). Nonverbal communication, ges-
ture, and second language classrooms: A review.
In S. G. McCafferty G. Stam (Eds.), Gesture: Sec-
ond language acquisition and classroom research (pp.
25–44). New York: Routledge.
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. Hamp-
shire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., Hickson, M. L.
(2012). Nonverbal behavior in interpersonal relations
(7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Schumann, J. H. (1998). The neurobiology of affect in lan-
guage. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stoller, F. L. (2006). Establishing a theoretical foun-
dation for project-based learning in second and
foreign language contexts. In G. H. Beckett P.
Chamness Miller (Eds.), Project-based second and for-
eign language education: Past, present, and future (pp.
19–40). Greenwich, CT: Infomation Age Publish-
ing.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory
and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook
of research in second language teaching and learn-
ing (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Thornbury, S. (2013). The learning body. In J. Arnold
T. Murphey (Eds.), Meaningful action: Earl Stevick’s
inluence on language teaching (pp. 62–78). Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ushioda, E. (2015). Context and complex dynamic sys-
tems theory. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre, A.
Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language
learning (pp. 47–54). Bristol, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., Lowie, W. (Eds.). (2011).
A dynamic approach to second language development:
Methods and techniques. Philadelphia/Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Webb, N. M., Palinscar, A. S. (1996). Group processes
in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner R. C. Calfee
(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–
873). New York: Macmillan.
Williams, M., Mercer, S., Ryan, S. (2015). Exploring
psychology in language learning and teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Willis, D., Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

A Complex Systems Investigation Of Group Work Dynamics In L2 Interactive Tasks

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A Complex Systems Investigation Of Group Work Dynamics In L2 Interactive Tasks

Similar to A Complex Systems Investigation Of Group Work Dynamics In L2 Interactive Tasks (20)

More from Mary Calkins

More from Mary Calkins (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A Complex Systems Investigation Of Group Work Dynamics In L2 Interactive Tasks