teacher- and learner-led discourse as tools for l2 grammatical development in task-based spanish...

Teacher- and learner-led discourse as Teacher- and learner-led discourse as

tools for L2 grammatical development tools for L2 grammatical development

in task-based Spanish instructionin task-based Spanish instruction

Teacher- and learner-led discourse as Teacher- and learner-led discourse as

tools for L2 grammatical development tools for L2 grammatical development

in task-based Spanish instructionin task-based Spanish instruction

Paul D. TothUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

[email protected]

2007 TLBT Conference, University of Hawai’i

mailto:[email protected]

Instruction & L2 grammatical Instruction & L2 grammatical developmentdevelopment

Instruction & L2 grammatical Instruction & L2 grammatical developmentdevelopment

• Provision of comprehensible L2 input via: Modifications to instructional speech or materials Opportunities for learner negotiation

• Attention directed to L2 form-meaning relationships

via: Salience in instructional speech or materials Explicit, metalinguistic information about the L2 Feedback on learner performance

• Opportunities for L2 output (Swain, 1985, 1995, 2000) Learners “pushed” to encode meaning in morphosyntax Test hypotheses about L2 form-meaning relationships Notice gaps in L2 grammar Conceptualize L2 grammar through “metatalk”

Task-Based InstructionTask-Based InstructionTask-Based InstructionTask-Based Instruction

• “Require[s] learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective” (Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001, p. 11)

• “Focused tasks” target the purposeful use of specific L2 structures to express meaning (Ellis, 2003, p. 16)

Descriptions = adjective agreement Narration = past tense and aspect marking Requests of others = subjunctive mood Explaining procedures = impersonal passive Narrating spontaneous events = inchoative verbs

Learner-Led Discourse Learner-Led Discourse Learner-Led Discourse Learner-Led Discourse

• Strengths: More like real world communication (Nunan, 1987) Participatory structure more suitable for negotiation, especially during “information gap” tasks (Pica, 1987; Pica et al., 1993)

More discourse turns per learner = more opportunities for negotiation (Lee, 2000; Long & Porter, 1985)

Greater linguistic autonomy and self-regulation (van Lier, 1996)

Learners assist each other during task performance (Donato, 1994; Swain, 1998, 2000; Swain & Lapkin, 1995)

Learner-Led Discourse Learner-Led Discourse Learner-Led Discourse Learner-Led Discourse

• Weaknesses: Learners often produce minimal utterances

(Seedhouse, 1999)

Learners are poor L2 models for each other (Prabhu, 1987)

Learners prefer to focus on lexical rather than morphosyntactic L2 issues when negotiating (Buckwalter, 2001; Morris, 2002; Williams, 1999)

• Suggested Remedies: Make target forms “useful” or “essential” to task performance (Loschky & Bley-Vroman, 1993; Fotos, 2002)

Precede tasks with pre-task warm-up to orient learners to necessary language; follow tasks with post-task activity to lend accountability to learner performance (Skehan, 1996, 1998)

Teacher-Led Discourse Teacher-Led Discourse Teacher-Led Discourse Teacher-Led Discourse

• Strengths: Teacher input and support provides expert “scaffolding” for task performance (Adair-Hauck & Donato, 1994; Antón, 1999; McCormick & Donato, 2000).

Teacher feedback has been shown to benefit non-turn-taking listeners as well as active discourse participants (Ohta, 2000, 2001).

• Weaknesses: Far fewer speaking turns per learner (Lee, 2000) IRF sequences (Initiate, Response, Feedback) often limit learner utterances and prevent development of broader interactional competence (Brooks, 1993; Hall, 1995, 2004; Leemann-Guthrie, 1984; Mehan, 1979; Nunan, 1990)

Teacher-Led Discourse Teacher-Led Discourse Teacher-Led Discourse Teacher-Led Discourse

• Suggested Remedies:

Design whole-class activities as collaborative communication tasks, rather than mechanical grammar drills (DeKeyser, 1998; Wong & VanPatten, 2003)

Teachers should build their turns upon topical content of learner utterances, as “follow up” moves (Johnson, 1995; Toth, 2004; Wells, 1998)

Solicit multiple learner responses to teacher questions before moving onto another question (Toth)

Motivation for comparing TLD & LLDMotivation for comparing TLD & LLDMotivation for comparing TLD & LLDMotivation for comparing TLD & LLD

• Importance of interlocutors and interaction in L2 acquisition

• Little previous research: Pica (1987), Doughty & Pica (1986): More negotiation for

LLD in “information exchange” tasks; similar amounts of negotiation in more open-ended “collaborative discussion”

Fotos (1993, 1994): TLD and LLD classes perform nearly equally, with TLD group “noticing” one of target structures more frequently

• Calls for further research: Pica (1994): Benefits of negotiated interaction in

learner dyads need to be supported by quantitative assessments of learning outcomes

DeKeyser (2003), Doughty (2003), Pica (2005): Quantitative studies of learning outcomes through LLD negotiation need to be conducted in ecologically-valid classroom contexts, rather than only in laboratory settings.

Spanish Spanish seseSpanish Spanish sese

a. Ellos prepararon la comida.

AGENT PATIENT “They prepared the food.”

b. Ellos prepararon la comida.

AGENT PATIENT

“They prepared the food.”c.c. Ellos cocinaron la Ellos cocinaron la

comida.comida.

AGENT AGENT

PATIENTPATIENT

“ “They cooked the They cooked the

food.” food.”

Se used to derive intransitive syntax from a transitive verb (Dobrobie-Sorin, 1998; Montrul, 2004; Raposo & Uriagereka, 1996)

“anticausative se”

Ellos se prepararon.

AGENT

“They prepared themselves / each

other.”

X

X

X

Se preparó la comida.

PATIENT

“The food was prepared / One prepared

food.”

SeSe cocinó la comida. cocinó la comida. PATIENTPATIENT

“ “The food The food ØØ cooked / cooked / waswas

cooked /cooked / OneOne cooked food.” cooked food.”

Research QuestionsResearch QuestionsResearch QuestionsResearch Questions

• Question 1: Will LLD provide an advantage in grammaticality judgments for Spanish anticausative se when compared to TLD?

• Question 2: Will LLD provide an advantage over TLD in performance with anticausative se on sentence-level picture descriptions?

• Question 3: Will excerpts of classroom interactions reveal differences in the way learners in each group attend to the form-meaning relationships associated with anticausative se and use the target form for output?

Method: ParticipantsMethod: ParticipantsMethod: ParticipantsMethod: Participants

6 intact classes of 2nd semester beginning L2 Spanish in two large, public American universities with identical Spanish curriculums. Each group comprised of two classes.

Teacher-Led Discourse (TLD): n = 28

Learner-Led Discourse (LLD): n = 25

Control Group (C): n = 25

Native Speaker comparison group: n = 30

Method: InstructionMethod: InstructionMethod: InstructionMethod: Instruction

Day Le s s on to pi cs

Day 1 (Mond a y) Adm in is ter p re te s t , re view re fle xiv e s e w it h re m ain ing t im e .

Day 2 ( Tu e sd a y) In t ro d u ce an d p ra ct ice im per son a l s e .

Day 3 (We dn esd a y) In t ro d u ce an d p ra ct ice p as s iv e s e .

Day 4 ( Th u rsd a y) In t ro d u ce an d p ra ct ice mid d le vo ice se o f “un p la n n ed oc curr e n ce s.”

Day 5 (F r iday) Pr a ct ice m idd le v o ice se w ith ind ire ct ob je ct p ro nou n s.

Day 6 (Mond a y) In t ro d u ce an d p ra ct ice ve rb s o f e m o tio n w it h s e .

Day 7 ( Tu e sd a y) Re vi ew w ee k’s le s so n, a d m in is ter imm edi a te p o s t te s t .

Sequence of lesson topics for treatment groups

anticausative se

• Standard 50-minute daily lesson: Whole-class warm-up activity, reminiscent of previous

day’s tasks (5 mins.) Explicit grammar explanation for current day’s topic

(5 mins.) LLD: 2 passes through pre-task, task, post-task

sequence, with most tasks designed as two-way information gaps (40 mins.)

TLD: 4-6 tasks mirroring those of the LLD group, implemented as whole-class, collaborative interaction. (40 mins.)



Spotting differences activity:

•LLD: implemented as a two-way information gap in small groups

•TLD: implemented as whole-class collaborative discourse

Method: AssessmentMethod: AssessmentMethod: AssessmentMethod: Assessment

• Experimental Design: Pre-test, Immediate posttest Delayed posttest (24 days after instruction)

• Two test versions, piloted on two native speakers, and randomly assigned to learners. Then rotated over the three test administrations Grammaticality judgment (GJ) task Picture description task

• Lesson on “se of unplanned occurrences” recorded and transcribed in each group

Method: GJ TaskMethod: GJ TaskMethod: GJ TaskMethod: GJ Task

No se fuma aquí. -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

Se descompusieron las máquinas. -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

Se trae cerveza a todas las fiestas. -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3

(One doesn’t smoke here.)

(The machines broke down.)

(Beer is brought to every party.)

Sample items from the grammaticality judgment task

Method: Picture Description TaskMethod: Picture Description TaskMethod: Picture Description TaskMethod: Picture Description Task

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

(the glass, to break)

el vaso

romper

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

(the glass, to break)

el vaso

romper

Sample item from the picture description task

Results: Picture Description TaskResults: Picture Description TaskResults: Picture Description TaskResults: Picture Description Task

Statistic Control Learner-led Teacher-led Native

Pre Post Delay Pre Post Delay Pre Post Delay

Production Task

Group Mean 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.48 0.33 0.04 0.63 0.50 0.48

Stand. Deviation 0.05 0.00 0.11 0.08 0.32 0.30 0.10 0.32 0.34 0.20

ANOVA results:

Group × Time o f test: F (4,148) = 15.20, p < 0.001, p2 = 0.29

Gro :up F (2,74) = 50.38, p< 0.001, p2 = 0.58

Time o f test: F (2,148) = 55.26, p< 0.001, p2 = 0.43

increase = 0.02 increase = 0.31 increase = 0.46

Results: Picture Description TaskResults: Picture Description TaskResults: Picture Description TaskResults: Picture Description Task

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Mean Production Score

Pretest Posttest Delayed Time of Te st

Control (C)

Teacher-led (TLD) Learner-led (LLD)

NS mean = 0.48

Results: GJ TaskResults: GJ TaskResults: GJ TaskResults: GJ Task

Statistic Control Learner-led Teacher-led Native

Pre Post Delay Pre Post Delay Pre Post Delay

GJ Task

Group Mean 0.71 0.61 0.80 0.91 1.74 1.27 0.86 2.17 1.93 2.24

Stand. Deviation 1.18 1.31 0.85 0.94 0.64 0.99 1.01 0.66 0.71 0.75

ANOVA results:

Group × Time o f test: F (4,150) = 6.45, p < 0.001, p2 = 0.15

Gro :up F (2,75) = 12.19, p< 0.001, p2 = 0.25

Time o f test: F (2, 150) = 16.56, p < 0.001, p2 = 0.18

increase = 0.09 increase = 0.36 increase = 1.07

Results: GJ TaskResults: GJ TaskResults: GJ TaskResults: GJ Task

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Mean Grammaticality Judgment

Pretest Posttest Delayed Time of Te st

Control (C)

Teacher-led (TLD)

Learner-led (LLD)

NS mean = 2.24

Results: TranscriptsResults: TranscriptsResults: TranscriptsResults: Transcripts

a. Student 1: El vino, la botella se moja la sofá. (Oh, ok. The wine, the bottle [se] wets the sofa.)

b. Student 2: ¿Moja o mojo? (Wets or wet?)

c. Student 1: Se mojó. Like it wet the couch. So, la botella se mojó la sofá. ([Se] wet. Like it wet the couch. So, the bottle [se] wet the couch.)

d. Student 3: O se cayó. (Or it fell down.)

e. Student 1: ¿Se cayó?

f. Student 3: Se cayó.

g. Student 1: But it didn’t break the couch.

h. Student 3: No, caer. It fell.

1. LLD Information gap activity


2. LLD information gap activity

a. Student 1: ¿Qué pasó? Es. . . [Student 3 indicates the windows] Ah, ok. Se, um…se, se, cerraron. (Um, I don’t know. What happened? It’s… Ah, ok. They [se], [se] closed.)

b. Student 2: ¿Cierran? (They close?)

c. Student 1: Cierre, so past tense would be ‘cerraron’. Sí. Las ventanas se cerraron. (‘It closes’ so past tense would be ‘they closed’. Yes , the windows closed.)

…

q. Student 2: En-, entonces, ¿«se cierre»? Porque— (So, so ‘it closes’ [using the form with diphthong]? Because—)

r. Student 1: Um, ‘se cerrió’, I think, is past tense. Cause you don’t, you don’t con—, like in the present tense it’s ‘cierro’, but in the past tense it’s ‘cerró’.

s. Student 3: No cambias, ah, el “root”, “root”, stem— (You don’t change the “root”, “root”, stem—)

t. Student 1: —el verbo, sí, en el pasado. Okay, so, se cerró la puerta en tu dibujo. (—the verb, yes, in the past. Okay, so the door closed in your drawing.)


3. TLD whole-class collaborative discourse

a. Teacher: Venga, vamos a ver. ¿Qué ocurrió durante la tormenta? ¿Qué ocurrió? Sí. (Okay, let's see. What happened during the storm? What happened? Yes?)

b. Student 4: Um, la ventana se, um abrió. (Um, the window, [se] um opened)

c. Teacher: Bien. En el dibujo B, ¿verdad? En el dibujo B la ventana se abrió. En el dibujo A, ¿qué? (Good. In drawing B, right? In drawing B the window [se] opened. In drawing A, what?)

d. Student 4: En el dibujo A, la ventana… (In drawing A the window…)

e. Teacher: Sí…¿Se abrió? No. Se… (Yes…Did it [se] open? No. It [se]…)

f. Student 4: No, se…ce-, ce-, cerró. (No, it [se]…cl-, cl- closed.)

IRF{


3. TLD whole-class collaborative discourse (cont.)g. Teacher: Perfecto…En el dibujo A se cerró la ventana y en el dibujo B, se abrió. ¿Más? Jim. (Perfect…In drawing A the window [se] closed and in drawing B it [se] opened. What else? Jim.)

h. Student 5: Um, en B, la luz, uh, ca-, uh, cayó. (Um, in B, the light, uh, f-, uh, fell [incorrect omission of se].)

i. Teacher: S— [making a falling gesture with her hands, and then pointing toward another learner with his hand up.]

j. Student 6: Se cayó. (It [se] fell down.)

k. Teacher: Perfecto. (Perfect.)

l. Student 5: Se cayó. (It [se] fell down.)


4. TLD whole-class collaborative discourse

a. Student 7: La puerta, uh, a-, ¿abrió? Se, se abrió.

(The door, uh, o-, opened? It [se] opened.)

b. Teacher: Sí, la puerta se abrió.

(Yes, the door [se] opened.)

c. Student 7: En dibujo B, la puerta cerró.

(In drawing B, the door closed [incorrect omission of se].)

d. Teacher: S—

e. Student 7: [simultaneously] Se cerró.

(It [se] opened.)

f. Teacher : Perfecto. La puerta se cerró.

(Perfect. The door [se] closed.)


5. TLD whole-class collaborative discoursea. Student 1: Um, en dibujo A, um, la lluvia— (Um in drawing A, um, the rain—)

b. Teacher: —Mm-hm—

c. Student 1: —[pause] ¿Se?— (got)

d. Teacher: No sé. Venga, venga. La lluvia ¿qué? (I don’t know. Come on, come on. The rain what?)

e. Student 1: mojó. (wet)

f. Teacher: ¿La lluvia se mojó? (The rain got wet?)

g. Student 1: Mm-hm.

h. Teacher: ¿La lluvia se mojó [making a motion with her hands back toward herself] ? Eso es muy metafísico. Eso es muy, como, misticismo. ¿Cómo que la lluvia—? La lluvia no se mojó

[again, making a motion with her hands back toward herself]. La luvia, a sí misma.

(The rain got wet [making a motion with her hands back toward herself] ? That is very metaphsyical. It’s very, like, mysticism. How could the rain—? The rain didn’t get itself

wet [again, making a motion with her hands back toward herself]. The rain, to itself.)


5. TLD whole-class collaborative discourse (cont.)i. Student 1: ¿Mojó? Mojó. It wet? It wet.

j. Teacher: La lluvia mojó [making a motion with her hands as if putting the parts of a sentence together linearly] ¿qué?

(The rain got what wet [making a motion with her hands as if putting the parts of a sentence together linearly]?)

k. Student 1: ¿Cómo se dice «carpet»? (How do you say “carpet”?)

l. Teacher: ¿Cómo se dice? (How do you say it?)

m. Student 2: El alfombro (The carpet)

n. Teacher: Alfombra. Muy bien. La alfombra. La lluvia mojó la alfombra. O ¿la alfombra? (Carpet. Ver y good. The carpet. The rain got the carpet wet. Or the carpet?)

o. Student 1: Se mojó. (Got wet.)

p. Teacher: Perfecto. La alfombra se mojó. (Perfect. The carpet got wet.)


6. LLD information gap activitya. Student 1: Ok, you could say, maybe, ‘Se, se entra viento en la casa’, like— (Ok, you could say, maybe, ‘the wind [se], [se] enters the house, like—)

b. Student 3: Se, uh, entró, ¿verdad? (It [se], uh, entered, right?)

c. Student 1: Se entró viento en la casa. (The wind [se] entered the house.)

d. Student 3: Se entró. (It [se] entered.)

e. Student 2: Oh, se— ¿Se entró? (Oh, [se]— It [se] entered?)

f. Student 1: Se entró. Oh, but would you use ‘se’ with that? (It [se] entered. Oh but would you use ‘se’ with that?)

g. Student 2: You wouldn’t.

h. Student 1: No, because that’s a subject. Right. Viento entré, entró en la casa. (Wind enter, entered the house.)


a. Student 3: ¿Qué es la palabra para desde aquí a allí? (What is the word for from here to there”?)

b. Student 1: ¿“Derecha”? (“Right” [i.e., the direction])?

c. Student 3: “Derecha.” (“Right.”)

d. Student 1: Mm-hm, verdad. (Mm-hm, correct.)

e. Student 3: Sí. (Yes.)

f. Student 2: Hm. Sí. (Hm. Yes.)

g. Student 1: Derecha a izquierda. (Right to left)

h. Student 3: [simultaneously] ¿“Derecha” es el verbo? (“Right” is the verb?)

7. LLD Information gap activity


i. Student 1: No, no, no. Derecha es el… (No, no, no. Right is the…)

j. Student 3: The direction.

k. Student 1: Yea h, right. Like derecha a izquierda. (Yeah right. Like right to left.)

l. Student 3: ¿Qué es, ah, el, qué es el verbo? (What is, ah, the, what is the verb?)

m. Student 1: [to Student 2] ¿Tus padres hablan español? (Do your parents speak Spanish?

n. Student 2 Sí. (Yeah.)

o. Student 3: [to Student 1] ¿Qué es el verbo? (What is the verb?)

7. LLD Information gap activity (cont.)


p. Student 1: Oh, para—mojar, mojar, mojar . Er, no, no, no. Moverse. That’s it. (Oh, for—to wet, to wet, to wet. Er, no, no, no. To move. That’s it.)

q. Student 3: Mo—

r. Student 1: Moverse.

s. Student 3: [writing down the spelling] Eme, o, ve,

[All three help with spelling of the verb]…

t. Student 2: Se movió la sofá— (The sofa [se] moved—)

u. Student 1: Se movió— (It [se] moved—)

v. Student 2: a la derecha. (to the right.)

w. Student 1: a la derecha. Muy bien, Raúl. Eres muy inteligente…¡Hoy! [laughs]. (to the right. Ver y good, Raúl. You’re very intelligent…Today!)

7. LLD Information gap activity (cont.)

DiscussionDiscussionDiscussionDiscussion

• Under the best circumstances, learner’s attention to target forms may be limited in LLD:

Developmental needs that focus attention other areas of L2 morphosyntax

Widely-observed tendency to focus on lexis rather than morphosyntax, and to prioritize getting meaning across over formal accuracy

Preference for self-correction rather than other-correction (Buckwalter, 2001; Seedhouse, 2004)

Participatory roles that, while increasing turn-taking, do not authorize individuals to assist in procedures for making output


• In TLD, attention to target forms may be more consistent Provision of accurate input models and cues for using target form

Feedback centers on target form Cumulative benefit of feedback to others, if relevance is maintained across discourse turns

Participatory roles allow teacher-expert to directly assist learners in formulating utterances

Following Ohta (2001), potential for collaborative listeners to indirectly realize output benefits if they are cognitively engaged.


• Teachers as providers of procedural assistance in output processing:

Assistance with linguistic task of utterance formulation and morphosyntactic assembly, rather than conceptual or analytical “scaffolding” (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976).

Proactive, simultaneous assistance to learner rather than reactive and subsequent feedback, as in clarification requests, confirmation checks, or recasts. (Long, 1981, 1996).

Assistance utilizing L2 morphosyntax that is more complex than the learner’s extant interlanguage, OR

Useable metalinguistic information that can guide learners toward incorporating new forms into their L2 speech.


• Hypothesized benefits of procedural assistance

Some current models of language processing hold that hierarchical morphosyntactic relationships are computed on-line, during comprehension or production (Harrington, 2001; Juffs, 2004; Pritchett, 1992)

Parsing, or processing, L2 form-meaning relationships may be key to a transition theory that explains how the L2 linguistic properties become incorporated into interlanguage grammars. (Carroll, 2001; Gregg, 2001; Pienemann, 1999)

Procedural assistance may allow learners to implement, or “proceduralize,” the declarative L2 metalinguistic knowledge they have, increasing the complexity of L2 utterances that they can process

If learners are able to assemble more complex utterances with the assistance of an expert, this may facilitate incorporation of these structures into the implicit L2 grammatical system.

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferencesAdair-Hauck, B., & Donato, R. (1994). Foreign language explanations within the Zone of Proximal Development. Canadian Modern

Language Review, 50, 532-557. Antón, M. (1999). The discourse of a learner-centered classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the

second-language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 83, 303-318. Brooks, F. B. (1993). Some problems and caveats in 'communicative' discourse: Toward a conceptualization of the foreign language

classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 231-242. Buckwalter, P. (2001). Repair sequences in Spanish L2 dyadic discourse: A descriptive study. Modern Language Journal, 85, 380-

397. Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Introduction. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks:

Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 1-20). Harlow, UK: Longman. Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C.

Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 42-63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 311-348). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Dobrobie-Sorin, C. (1998). Impersonal se constructions in Romance and passivization of unergatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 399-437. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to

second language learning (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The

handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256-310). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). "Information gap" tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305-

325. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal instruction.

Applied Linguistics, 14, 385-403. Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks.

TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323-351. Fotos, S. (2002). Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on

grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 135-154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gregg, K. R. (2001). Learnability and second language acquisition theory. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language

instruction (pp. 152-180). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hall, J. K. (1995). "Aw man, where you goin'?": Interaction and the development of L2 interactional competence. Issues in Applied

Linguistics, 6, 37-62. Hall, J. K. (2004). "Practicing speaking" in Spanish: Lessons from a high school foreign language classroom. In D. Boxer & A. D.

Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 68-87). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferencesHarrington, M. (2001). Sentence processing. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 91-124).

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, K. E. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, processing, and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102,

199-225. Lee, J. F. (2000). Tasks and communicating in language classrooms. New York: McGraw-Hill. Leemann-Guthrie, E. (1984). Intake, communication, and second-language teaching. In S. Savignon & M. Berns (Eds.), Initiatives in

communicative language teaching: A book of readings. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Annals of the New York Academy of

Sciences: Vol. 379. Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259-278). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.

Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207-228. Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language

learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123-163). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. McCormick, D. E., & Donato, R. (2000). Teacher questions as scaffolded assistance in an ESL classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. S.

Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 183-202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Montrul, S. (2004). The acquisition of Spanish: Morphosyntactic development in monolingual and bilingual L1 acquisition and adult

L2 acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal, 41, 136-145. Nunan, D. (1990). The questions teachers ask. JALT Journal, 12, 187-202. Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom. In J.

K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 47-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pica, T. (1987). Second-language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8, 3-21. Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning, processes and outcomes? Language

Learning, 44, 493-527.

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferencesPica, T. (2005). Classroom learning, teaching, and research: A task-based perspective. Modern Language Journal, 89, 339-352. Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language acquisition. In G. Crookes &

S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-34). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pienemann, M. (1999). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Pritchett, B. L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Raposo, E., & Uriagereka, J. (1996). Indefinite SE. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14, 749-810. Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task-based interaction. ELT Journal, 53, 149-156. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA:

Blackwell Publishing. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-62. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development.

In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in

applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom

second language acquisition (pp. 64-82). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.),

Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language

learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391. To th, P. D. (2004). When grammar instruction undermines cohesion in L2 Spanish classroom discourse. Modern Language Journal,

88, 14-30. van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and authenticity. London: Longman. Wells, G. (1998). Some questions about direct instruction: Why? To whom? How? and When? Language Arts, 76(1), 27-35. Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583-625. Wong, W., & VanPatten, B. (2003). The evidence is IN: Drills are OUT. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 403-423. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,

17, 89-100.

teacher- and learner-led discourse as tools for l2 grammatical development in task-based spanish...

Documents

l2 grammar

l2 feedback

l2 form

learner lee

l2 output swain

learner performance

task performance donato

poor l2 models