Transcript Teacher- and learner-led discourse as tools for L2 grammatical development in task-based Spanish instruction Paul D.

Teacher- and learner-led discourse as
tools for L2 grammatical development in
task-based Spanish instruction
Paul D. Toth
University of Wisconsin-Madison
[email protected]
2007 TLBT Conference, University of Hawai’i
Instruction & L2 grammatical development
• 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 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
• 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
• 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
• 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-turntaking 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
• 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 & 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 se
Se used to derive intransitive syntax from a transitive verb
(Dobrobie-Sorin, 1998; Montrul, 2004; Raposo & Uriagereka, 1996)
a. Ellos prepararon la comida.
AGENT
PATIENT
X

“They prepared themselves / each other.”
“They prepared the food.”
X
b. Ellos prepararon la comida.
AGENT
PATIENT
“They prepared the food.”
Ellos se prepararon.
AGENT

Se preparó la comida.
PATIENT
“The food was prepared / One prepared food.”
“anticausative se”
c. Ellos cocinaron la comida.
AGENT
PATIENT
X
“They cooked the food.”

Se cocinó la comida.
PATIENT
“The food Ø cooked / was cooked /
One cooked food.”
Research 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: 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: Instruction
Sequence of lesson topics for treatment groups
D ay
Lesson topic s
D ay 1 (M onday)
A dminister pretest, review reflexive se with remaining time.
D ay 2 (Tues day)
I ntroduc e a nd practice impe rs onal se.
D ay 3 (Wednes day)
I ntroduc e a nd practice passive se.
anticausative se
D ay 4 (Thurs day)
I ntroduc e a nd practice middle voice s e of “unplanned occurrences .”
D ay 5 (Friday)
P rac tic e middle voic e se with indirect object pronouns .
D ay 6 (M onday)
I ntroduc e a nd practice verbs of emotion with se.
D ay 7 (Tues day)
R eview week’s lesson, administer immedia te posttest.
Method: Instruction
• 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.)
Method: Instruction
Spotting differences activity:
•LLD: implemented as a two-way information gap in small groups
•TLD: implemented as whole-class collaborative discourse
Method: 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 Task
Sample items from the grammaticality judgment task
No se fuma aqu’.
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
Se descompusieron las m‡quinas.
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
Se trae cerveza a t odas las fiestas.
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
(One doesnÕt smoke here.)
(The machines broke down.)
(Beer is brought t o every party.)
Method: Picture Description Task
Sample item from the picture description task
el vaso
Qu i c k T i m e ™ a n d a
T I F F (Un c o m p re s s e d ) d e c o m p re s s o r
a re n e e d e d t o s e e t h i s p i c tu re .
romper
(the glass, to break)
Results: Picture Description Task
Statistic
Control
Pre
Production T ask
Post
Learner-led
Delay Pre
increase = 0.02
Post
T eacher-led
Delay Pre
increase = 0.31
Post
Native
Delay
increase = 0.46
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
Results: Picture Description Task

NS mean = 0.48
Results: GJ Task
Statistic
Control
Pre
GJ T ask
Post
Learner-led
Delay Pre
increase = 0.09
Post
T eacher-led
Delay Pre
increase = 0.36
Post
Native
Delay
increase = 1.07
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
Results: GJ Task

NS mean = 2.24
Results: Transcripts
1. LLD Information gap activity

a. Student 1: El vino, la botella se m oja la sof‡.
(Oh, ok. The wine, the bottle [se] wets the sofa.)

b. Student 2: ÀMoja o m ojo?
(Wets or wet?)
c. Student 1: Se m oj—. Like it wet the couch. So, la botella se m oj—la sof‡.
([Se] wet. Like it wet the couch. So, the bottle [se] wet the couch.)

d. Student 3: O se cay—.
(Or it fell down.)
e. Student 1: ÀSe cay—?
f. Student 3: Se cay—.
g. Student 1: But it didnÕt break the couch.
h. Student 3: No, caer. It fell.
Results: Transcripts
2. LLD information gap activity
a. Student 1: ÀQuŽpas—?Es. . . [Student 3 indicat es the windows] Ah, ok. Se, umÉse, se, cerraron.
(Um, I donÕt know. What happened? ItÕsÉ Ah, ok. They [se], [se] closed.)

b. Student 2: ÀCierran?
(They close?)
c. Student 1: Cierre, so past tense would be ÔcerraronÕ. S’. Las ventanasse cerraron.
(ÔIt closesÕso past tense would be Ôthey closedÕ. Yes, the windows closed.)
É

q. Student 2: En-, entonces, ÀÇse cierreÈ?PorqueÑ
(So, so Ôit closesÕ[using the form with diphthong]? BecauseÑ )

r. Student 1: Um, Ôse cerri—Õ, I think, is past tense. Cause you donÕt , you donÕt conÑ , like in
the present tense itÕs ÔcierroÕ, but in the past tense itÕs Ôcerr—Õ.
s. Student 3: No cam bias, ah, el ÒrootÓ, ÒrootÓ, stemÑ
(You donÕt change the ÒrootÓ, ÒrootÓ, stemÑ )
t. Student 1: Ñ el verbo, s’, en el pasado. Okay, so, se cerr—la puerta en tu dibujo.
(Ñ the verb, yes, in the past . Okay, so the door closed in your drawing.)
Results: Transcripts
3. TLD whole-class collaborative discourse
a. T eacher: Venga, vam osa ver. ÀQuŽocurri—durantela torm enta? ÀQuŽocurri—?S’.
(Okay, let's see. What happened during the st orm? What happened? Yes?)
{
b. Student 4: Um, la ventana se, um abri—
.
(Um, the window, [se] um opened)
IRF c. T eacher: Bien.
En el dibujo B, Àverdad? En el dibujo Bla ventanase abri—
. En el dibujo A, ÀquŽ
?
(Good. In drawing B, right? In drawing B the window [se] opened. In drawing A, what?)
d. Student 4: En el dibujo A, la ventanaÉ
(In drawing A the windowÉ )
 e. T eacher: S’ÉÀSe abri—?No. SeÉ
(YesÉD id it [se] open? No. It [se]É )
f. Student 4: No, seÉce-, ce-, cerr—.
(No, it [se]Éc l-, cl- closed.)
Results: Transcripts
3. TLD whole-class collaborative discourse (cont.)
g. T eacher: PerfectoÉEn el dibujo A se cerr—la ventanay en el dibujo B, se abri—.ÀM‡s? Jim.
(PerfectÉI n drawing A the window [se] closed and in drawing B it [se] opened.
What else? Jim.)
h. Student 5: Um , enB, la luz, uh, ca-, uh, cay—.
(Um, in B, the light, uh, f-, uh, fell [incorrect omission of se].)
 i.
T eacher: SÑ [making a falling gesture with her hands, and then pointing toward another learner
with his hand up.]
j. Student 6: Se cay—
.
(It [se] fell down.)
k. T eacher: Perfecto.
(Perfect.)
 l.
Student 5: Se cay—.
(It [se] fell down.)
Results: Transcripts
4. TLD whole-class collaborative discourse
 a.
Student 7: La puerta, uh, a-, Àabri—?Se, se abri—.
(The door, uh, o-, opened? It [se] opened.)
 b. T eacher:
S’, la puerta se abri—.
(Yes, the door [se] opened.)
c. Student 7: En dibujo B, la puerta cerr—.
(In drawing B, the door closed [incorrect omission of se].)
 d. T eacher:
SÑ
e. Student 7: [simultaneously] Se cerr—.
(It [se] opened.)
f. T eacher : Perfecto. La puerta se cerr—.
(P erfect. The door [se] closed.)
Results: Transcripts
5. TLD whole-class collaborative discourse
Um, en dibujo A, um, la lluviaÑ
 a. Student 1:(Um
in drawing A, um, the rainÑ )
b. T eacher: Ñ Mm-hmÑ


c. Student 1: Ñ [pause] ÀSe?Ñ
(got)

e. Student 1: m oj—.
(wet)

f. T eacher: ÀLa lluvia se m oj—?
(The rain got wet?)
d. T eacher: No sŽ
. Venga, venga. La lluvia ÀquŽ
?
(I donÕt know. Come on, come on. The rain what?)
g. Student 1: Mm-hm.

h. T eacher: ÀLa lluvia se m oj—[making a motion with her hands back toward herself] ? Eso es m uy
m etaf’sico. Eso es m uy, com o, m isticism o. ÀC—m
o que la lluviaÑ ? La lluvia no se m oj—
[again, making a motion with her hands back toward herself]. La luvia, a s’ m ism a.
(The rain got wet [making a motion with her hands back t oward herself] ? That is very
metaphsyical. ItÕs very, like, mysticism. How could the rainÑ ? The rain didnÕt get itself
wet [again, making a motion with her hands back t oward herself]. The rain, to itself.)
Results: Transcripts
5. TLD whole-class collaborative discourse (cont.)
i. Student 1: ÀMoj—?Moj—.
It wet? It wet.

j. T eacher: La lluvia m oj—[making a motion with her hands as if put ting the parts of a sentence
t ogether linearly] ÀquŽ
?
(The rain got what wet [making a motion with her hands as if putting the parts of a
sentence together linearly]?)
k. Student 1: ÀC—m o se dice ÇcarpetÈ?
(How do you say ÒcarpetÓ?)
l. T eacher: ÀC—m o se dice?
(How do you say it?)
m. Student 2: El alfom bro
(The carpet)

n. T eacher: Alfom bra. Muy bien. La alfom bra. La lluvia m oj—la alfom bra. O Àla alfom bra?
(Carpet. Very good. The carpet. The rain got the carpet wet . Or the carpet?)
o. Student 1: Se m oj—.
(Got wet .)
p. T eacher: Perfecto. La alfom brase m oj—.
(P erfect . The carpet got wet.)
Results: Transcripts
6. LLD information gap activity
Ok, you could say, maybe, ÔSe, se entra viento en la casaÕ, likeÑ
 a. Student 1: (Ok,
you could say, maybe, Ôthe wind [se], [se] enters the house, likeÑ )
uh, entr—
, Àverdad?
 b. Student 3:(ItSe,[se],
uh, ent ered, right?)
c. Student 1: Se entr— vient
o en la casa.
(The wind [se] entered the house.)
d. Student 3: Se entr—.
(It [se] entered.)
e. Student 2: Oh, seÑ ÀSe entr—?
(Oh, [se]Ñ It [se] entered?)
 f. Student 1: Se entr—.Oh, but would you use ÔseÕwith that?
(It [se] entered. Oh but would you use ÔseÕwith that?)
g. Student 2: You wouldnÕt.
Viento entrŽ
, entr—en la casa.
 h. Student 1: No, because thatÕs a subject . Right. (Wind
enter, entered the house.)
Results: Transcripts
7. LLD Information gap activity
 a. Student 3: ÀQuŽes la palabra para desde aqu’ aall’?
(What is the word for from here to thereÓ?)

b. Student 1: ÀÒDerechaÓ?
(ÒRightÓ i[.e., the direction])?
c. Student 3: ÒDerecha.Ó
(ÒRight.Ó)
d. Student 1: Mm-hm, verdad.
(Mm-hm, correct .)
e. Student 3: S’.
(Yes.)
f. Student 2: Hm. S’.
(Hm. Yes.)

g. Student 1: Derecha a izquierda.
(Right t o left)
h. Student 3: [simultaneously] ÀÒDerechaÓes el verbo?
(ÒRightÓis the verb?)
Results: Transcripts
7. LLD Information gap activity (cont.)

i. Student 1: No, no, no. Derecha es elÉ
(No, no, no. Right is theÉ)
j. Student 3: The direction.
k. Student 1: Yeah, right. Like derecha a izquierda
.
(Yeah right. Like right to left.)

l. Student 3: ÀQuŽ
es , ah, el, quŽes el verbo?
(What is, ah, the, what is the verb?)

m. Student 1: [to Student 2] ÀTus padres hablan
espa–ol?
(Do your parents speak Spanish?
n. Student 2 S’.
(Yeah.)

o. Student 3: [to Student 1] ÀQuŽes el verbo?
(What is the verb?)
Results: Transcripts
7. LLD Information gap activity (cont.)
Oh, paraÑ m ojar, m ojar, m ojar
. Er, no, no, no. Moverse. ThatÕs it.
 p. Student 1: (Oh,
forÑ t o wet , to wet, to wet . Er, no, no, no. To move. ThatÕs it .)
q. Student 3: MoÑ
r. Student 1: Moverse.
s. Student 3: [writing down the spelling] Em e, o, ve,
[All three help with spelling of the verb]É

t. Student 2: Se m ovi—la sof‡Ñ
(The sofa [se] movedÑ )

u. Student 1: Se m ovi—
Ñ
(It [se] movedÑ )
v. Student 2: a la derecha.
(to the right.)
w. Student 1: a la derecha. Muy bien, Raœl. Eres m uy inteligenteÉÁHoy! [laughs].
(to the right. Very good, Raœl. YouÕrevery intelligentÉT oday!)
Discussion
• 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 othercorrection (Buckwalter, 2001; Seedhouse, 2004)
 Participatory roles that, while increasing turn-taking, do
not authorize individuals to assist in procedures for
making output
Discussion
• 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.
Discussion
• 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.
Discussion
• 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.
References
Adair-Hauck, B., & Donat o, R. (1994). Foreign language explanations within the Zone of P roximal Development. CanadianModern
LanguageReview, 50, 532-557.
Ant—
n, M. (1999).The discourse of a learner-centered classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacher-learner interaction in the
second-language classroom. Modern LanguageJournal, 83, 303-318.
Brooks, F. B. (1993). Some problems and caveat s in 'communicative' discourse: T oward a concept ualization of the foreign language
classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 231-242.
Buckwalter, P . (2001). Repair sequences in Spanish L2 dyadic discourse: A descriptive st udy. Modern LanguageJournal, 85, 380397.
Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swa in, M. (2001). Introduction. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swa in (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks:
Second language learning, teachin
g, and testing (pp. 1-20). Harlow, UK: Longman.
Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw m ateria l of second language acquisition. P hiladelphia: 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 P ress.
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 const ructions in Romance and passivization of unergatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 399-437.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lant olf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to
second language learning (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Doughty, C. J. (2003).Instructed SLA: Const raint s, 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, 305325.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based learning and teachin
g. Oxford, UK: Oxford University P ress.
Fot os, S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal inst ruction.
Applied Linguistics, 14, 385-403.
Fot os, S. (1994). Integrating grammar inst ruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks.
TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323-351.
Fot os, S. (2002). Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In E. Hinkel & S. Fot os (Eds.), New perspectives on
gram m ar teaching in second language classroom s (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 P ress.
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). "P racticing speaking" in Spanish: Lessons from a high school foreign language classroom. In D. Boxer & A. D.
Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform secondlanguage learning (pp. 68-87). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matt ers.
References
Harringt on, M. (2001).Sentence processing. In P . Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 91-124).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University P ress.
Johnson, K. E. (1995). Understanding comm unication in second language classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University P ress.
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 com municating in language classroom s. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Leemann-Guthrie, E. (1984). Intake, communication, and second-language teaching. In S. Savignon & M. Berns (Eds.), Initiatives in
comm unicative language teaching: A book of readings. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley P ublishing.
Long, M. H. (1981). nI put , interaction and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Annals of the New York Academ y 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 P ress.
Long, M. H., & Porter, P . A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage t alk, 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., & Donat o, R. (2000). Teacher questions as scaffolded assistance in an ESL classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. S.
Verplaet se (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning throughclassroom interaction (pp. 183-202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University P ress.
Mont rul, S. (2004). The acquisition of Spanish: Morphosyntactic developm ent in m onolingual 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 recast s: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom. In J.
K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign languag e learning throughclassroom 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.
References
Pica, 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 secondlanguage developm ent: Processability theory. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
P rabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
P ritchett, B. L. (1992). Gram matical com petence 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 P ublishing.
Skehan, P . (1996). A framework for the implement ation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-62.
Skehan, P . (1998). A cognitive approachto language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Swa in, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development.
In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second languageacquisition(pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swa in, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in
applied linguistics: Stu
dies in honourof H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University P ress.
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.
Swa in, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lant olf (Ed.),
Sociocultural theory and second language learning
(pp. 97-114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University P ress.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). P roblems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A st ep towards second language
learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391.
T oth, P . D. (2004). When grammar instruction undermines cohesion in L2 Spanish classroom discourse. Modern LanguageJournal,
88, 14-30.
van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum : Awareness, autonom ,y 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 Journalof Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
17, 89-100.