SWAIN_LAPKIN_1998_French Immersion Students Working Together

Interaction and Second Language Learning: Two Adolescent French Immersion StudentsWorking TogetherAuthor(s): Merrill Swain and Sharon LapkinSource: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 82, No. 3, Special Issue: The Role of Input andInteraction in Second Language Acquisition (Autumn, 1998), pp. 320-337Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers AssociationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/329959 .

Accessed: 14/10/2013 16:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.137 on Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:50:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nfmlta

http://www.jstor.org/stable/329959?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Interaction and Second Language Learning: Two Adolescent French Immersion Students Working Together MERRILL SWAIN Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

University of Toronto 252 Bloor St. West Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6 Canada Email: mswain @oise. utoronto. ca

SHARON LAPKIN Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

University of Toronto 252 Bloor St. West Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6 Canada Email: slapkin @oise. utoronto. ca

This article provides support for a theoretical orientation toward viewing dialogue as both a means of communication and a cognitive tool. Data to support this position come from an analysis of the language-related episodes isolated in the dialogue of two grade 8 French immersion students as they carry out ajigsaw task. During the task, the students work out a story line and write it out. As they do so, they encounter linguistic problems. To solve them, the students use their first language (L1) and second language (L2) in order to communicate to each other and as tools to aid their L2 learning. The language-related episodes discussed provide evidence of language use as both an enactment of mental processes and as an occasion for L2 learning. Variation in how other pairs of students in the class perform the task supports existing evidence that the same task does not provide similar occasions for L2 learning to all student dyads.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

We take the position in this article that language use is both communication and cognitive activity. Language is simultaneously a means of communication and a tool for thinking. Dialogue provides both the occasion for language learning and the evidence for it. Language is both process and product.

When language use is considered as communication, the concepts of input, comprehensible input, and comprehensible output are appropriate metaphors because they conjure up images of messages. These messages are transmitted as output from one source and received as input elsewhere. When there are difficulties in encoding or decoding these messages, language users mod- ify and restructure their interaction to achieve message comprehensibility. 'As they negotiate,

they work linguistically to achieve the needed comprehensibility, whether repeating a message verbatim, adjusting its syntax, changing its words, or modifying its form and meaning in a host of other ways" (Pica, 1994, p. 494). The hypothesis underlying this perspective is that the activity of negotiation leads to second language (L2) learning because it provides learners with comprehensible input (e.g., Krashen, 1985; Long, 1983). Recent research such as that conducted by Mackey (1995) and Mackey and Philp (this issue) provides supportive evidence for this view. Yet we are still left with the issue of how comprehensible input leads to L2 learning: What are the mecha- nisms by which comprehensible input is con- verted into L2 knowledge and use?

A complementary perspective is that language serves not only a communicative function, but is, itself, a psychological tool. Like any tool, it facili- tates task performance by mediating between us and the accomplishment of the task. The tool may facilitate our performance of the task and may make some things possible that were not oth- erwise. It may qualitatively change the nature of

The Modern Language Journal, 82, iii, (1998) 0026-7902/98/320-337 $1.50/0 @1998 The Modern Language Journal



Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin 321

the activity and it may change the subsequent outcome. One only needs to think of the com- puter as a tool, and the profound ways in which it is transforming our everyday activities, as for example, in writing (e.g., Cummins, 1990).

In this article, we wish to explore this complementary perspective. Our exploration takes the form of examining the dialogue that occurs between two learners as they attempt to solve the linguistic problems they face while writing a short narrative. By taking the perspective that the students are using language as a psychological tool, we will need to examine their dialogue for evidence of language being used as a tool in aid of L2 learning (see also Platt & Brooks, 1994). That is, we will examine the data for examples of students' use of language that mediates their learning-for example, the use of language to generate and test hypotheses. This is still considered "output" (Swain, 1995), but it is output used for a cognitive function. It is speaking as a cognitive activity, instantiated in dialogue.

The expectation that cognitive activity will be apparent in dialogue is supported by the work of Vygotsky and other more recent sociocultural theorists (e.g., Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989; Wertsch, 1991), who argue that cognitive processes arise from the interaction that occurs between individuals. Language becomes a mediating tool by its first having been used by others in order to regulate behavior, including cognitive behavior. Through a gradual process of internalization, one comes to be able to use the language of others (and the mental processes that interaction has constructed) to regulate one's own cognitive functioning. As Leont'ev (1981) states:

Higher psychological processes unique to humans can be acquired only through interaction with others, that is, through interpsychological processes that only later will begin to be carried out independently by the individual. When this happens, some of these processes lose their initial, external form and are con- verted into intrapsychological processes. (p. 56)

In ajoint problem-solving activity, what normally remains hidden in individually internalized thought may manifest itself in dialogue. This theoretical claim is discussed in Donato and Lantolf (1990), who suggest that cognitive processes, because they are derived and constituted dialogically, "... can be observed directly in the linguistic interactions that arise among speakers as they participate in problem-solving tasks" (p. 85). One of the pur- poses of this article is to examine to what extent the conversation of two students as they collabo-

ratively produce a story may be considered directly revealing of mental processes. In the first section of our literature review we therefore consider a study (Goss, Ying-Hua, & Lantolf, 1994) whose purpose was to demonstrate that the mental processes used to solve a linguistic problem are manifested in dialogue. The present study provides additional evidence for this position.

A further implication of the consideration of language as a mediating tool, as Donato (1994) has argued, is that "The focus [in SLA] should be . . . on observing the construction of co- knowledge and how this co-construction process results in linguistic change among and within individuals during joint activity"1 (p. 39). That is, in joint activity, language serves to coconstruct knowledge. This knowledge can be inferred from the changes observed in linguistic performance.

In the present study, one of our goals is to try to trace the linguistic change that occurs as learners engage in the sort of collaborative dialogue to which Donato (1994) refers. We wish to suggest that collaborative dialogue provides the occasion for L2 learning (see Swain, 1997). Unlike the claim that comprehensible input leads to learning, we wish to suggest that what occurs in collaborative dialogues is learning. That is, learning does not happen outside performance; it occurs in performance. Furthermore, learning is cumulative, emergent, and ongoing, sometimes occurring in leaps, while at other times it is im- perceptible.

Therefore, in the second part of the literature review, we consider two studies (Donato, 1994; LaPierre, 1994) that offer evidence that the co- construction of linguistic knowledge in dialogue is language learning in progress. Those studies suggest that the use of either the first language (L1) or the L2 as a mediational tool creates new language or new knowledge about language and consolidates existing knowledge (proceduraliza- tion) (see de Bot, 1996; Nobuyoshi & Ellis, 1993).

RELATED RESEARCH

As indicated above, there are two aspects of previous research related to the present study that we wish to consider: (a) dialogue as an enactment of mental processes, and (b) dialogue as occasions for L2 learning. We will also refer to several studies conducted in functioning classrooms as corroborative evidence to our own of the range of performances present in typical classroom activities.



322 The Modern Language Journal 82 (1998)

Dialogue as an Enactment of Mental Processes

Goss et al. (1994) conducted a study to investi- gate the validity of claims about what grammatical judgments represent: Do "learners access abstract grammatical knowledge or do they rely on some other knowledge source, such as memory of what someone (e.g., a language teacher) has told them, memory of what they think someone has told them, their own folk knowledge, or L1 equivalents, when carrying out such tasks?" (p. 263). What is important to our argument here is Goss et al.'s methodology and their rationale for using it. Rather than having L2 learners in- trospect about how they reached ajudgment, the researchers asked learners to decide jointly on the grammaticality of sentences. They rejected the use of think-aloud tasks because of their de- mand on learners to both solve a mental problem (cognitive level) and to report on the solving of the problem (metacognitive level) simultaneously. Under these circumstances, one of the processes (solving or reporting) is likely to break down (Vygotsky, 1979). However, by using a collaborative procedure, learners use language as they would normally, as a mediating tool: ". .. they have a single goal, the solving of a problem, [and] they solve it through dialogic interaction with another person" (Goss et al., p. 267).

In addition, because of the social origin of cog- nition and cognitive processes, Goss et al. (1994) note that ". . . the talk spontaneously generated by individuals in collaborative problem-solving situations offers a window into intramental processing" (p. 166). In other words, the window into intramental processing is more transparent than the window provided through introspective tech- niques. With dyadic problem solving, the window is also potentially larger because it is likely to generate more talk.

In the Goss et al. (1994) study, elementary- and advanced-level students of Spanish were given a grammaticality judgment task to perform either individually or with a partner. Response patterns were similar across those who performed the task individually or jointly within the elementary group and within the advanced group. (In addition, error rates were slightly higher for those who performed the task individually.) Goss et al. concluded, therefore, that similar mental processes are at work in joint activity and in individual activity when individuals from the same pop- ulation respond to the same task. Their study suggests that language mediated students' judgments as revealed in their making use of translations and making explicit their metaknowl-

edge. The students relied on memory (language mediated) and "feel" (an indication of relying on abstract linguistic principles, unmediated by language).

This study (Goss et al., 1994) is important to our work for its conclusion that the dialogue that arises during collaborative problem-solving is an enactment of cognitive activity. The study supports our use of collaborative tasks and our in- terpretation of language-related episodes.

Dialogue as Occasions for L2 Learning

Two studies have looked specifically at the language learning evident in collaborative dialogue. Donato (1994) studied what he referred to as "collective scaffolding." LaPierre (1994) examined the occasions for L2 learning in peer interaction-in this case, interaction about the language that student dyads were producing. One of the goals of Donato's (1994) study was to reveal how L2 learning is brought about on the social plane. In particular, the study sought to:

answer the question of whether learners can exert a developmental influence on each other's interlanguage system in observable ways. That is, rather than to theorize that interaction has the potential to result in L2 development, this study attempts to examine how social interactions in the classroom result in the appropriation of linguistic knowledge by the individual. (p.39)

The students involved in the study were third se- mester students of French at an American university. The data analyzed consisted of a 1-hour session in which three students planned for an oral activity (the presentation of a skit) that would take place the following week. The students had been told that they could not use notes in their presentation, nor were they to memorize their lines, but they could make notes while preparing if they wished. Donato examined the transcripts for examples of scaffolding, defined as a situation where, "in social interaction a knowledgeable participant can create, by means of speech, supportive conditions in which the novice can participate, and extend current skills and knowledge to higher levels of competence" (p. 40). In all, 32 cases of scaffolded help were identified in the hour-long planning session.

A key question here is whether this collective scaffolding offered occasions for linguistic development in the individual learner. That is, could linguistic development be traced back to the collective scaffolding episodes? To determine this, evidence for independent L2 performance was




sought in the actual oral activity performed the following week. Of the 32 cases of collective scaffolding observed in the planning session, 75% of the language structures involved in the scaffolding were used correctly the following week. Thus, through collaborative dialogue of this sort, learners added to their own L2 knowledge and ex- tended that of their peers. Learners provided for each other the support needed to outperform their competence and, in the process, develop their interlanguage (IL). Donato (1994) points out that his results are not surprising "in light of Vygotskyan theory which argues that individual knowledge is socially and dialogically derived, the genesis of which can be observed directly in the interactions among speakers during problem- solving tasks" (p. 51).

The LaPierre study (1994; Swain, 1998) involved grade 8 early French immersion students and served as a pilot study to the one reported on, in part, in this article. In LaPierre's study, it was hy- pothesized that when L2 learners engage in a task in which they need to talk about the language they are producing (metatalk) in order to complete the task, that metatalk may be a source of L2 learning. The task the students engaged in was a story reconstruction task (dictogloss; see Wajnryb, 1990).

Second language learning was tested by means of tailor-made dyad-specific posttests. Language- related episodes were isolated from the transcripts of the students' talk as they attempted to solve linguistic problems that they encountered while jointly reconstructing the passage. On the basis of these episodes, items were developed to test the language discussed. Thus, every pair of students had a set of test items that reflected specifically what they had discussed in reconstructing the passage. These tests were administered approximately 1 week after the students had completed the task.

The results of LaPierre's (1994) study show that when students solved a linguistic problem that they had encountered, the solution corre- sponded to their responses 1 week later. More specifically, of the 140 episodes where, through collaborative dialogue, a correct solution was at- tained, approximately 80% of the relevant posttest items were correct. Furthermore, and equally as telling, when students co-constructed an incorrect solution (21 such episodes), approximately 70% of the answers on the posttest were wrong, although they matched the solutions provided by the pairs. In other words, the students tended to retain the knowledge that they had constructed collaboratively the previous week. These

results suggest rather forcefully that these language related episodes, where students reflected consciously on the language that they were producing, were the occasion for L2 learning.

Classroom-Based Research

Two studies exist that are of particular rele- vance to our work because they, too, were conducted in functioning classrooms and were focused on input and output: Foster (1993) and Jacob, Rottenberg, Patrick, and Wheeler (1996). These studies support the view that conducting research in an ongoing classroom context may provide a different perspective on the implemen- tation of theoretical principles than research conducted in a laboratory-type setting. If one goal of the research is to understand better the relation- ship between theory and practice, then research conducted in a classroom setting will likely allow for a more realistic assessment of L2 learning than that conducted in a laboratory-type setting.

Foster (1993) investigated (a) the amount and distribution of language produced by dyads and small groups working on language tasks, (b) the degree to which these students negotiated for comprehensible input, and (c) the extent to which they modified their language in order to make it comprehensible to others. Her study is different from most of those reported in the research literature because it was conducted in her own classroom (with part-time intermediate-level adult English as a second language [ESL] learners). The study was designed to preserve the setting of an ongoing class during which students partici- pated in group tasks that were part of their sched- uled syllabus. With the exception of a grammar- based (optional information exchange) task, the tasks were communicative meaning-based (optional and required information exchange) tasks. Of the tapes of the students' interaction that were not too noisy for transcription and where the students correctly attempted the task, approximately 5 minutes of interaction per group were transcribed and coded. Foster found that, overall, dyads with an obligation to exchange information were most likely to talk and to negotiate meaning. However, as she points out:

when the individual scores are taken into account, it is clear that... many students preferred to contribute little to the interaction; only a few attempted to negotiate for comprehensible input; and even fewer produced any modified output. The range in the individual scores is so wide, and the lack of participation by some students is so striking as to make statistics based on group totals very misleading. (p. 25)



324 The Modern LanguageJournal 82 (1998)

Investigating another "everyday classroom," Jacob et al. (1996) reached a similar conclusion. The classroom that they observed was a sixth- grade social studies one. They were interested in exploring the extent to which a particular form of cooperative learning (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1986) provided the L2 learners in the class opportunities for learning academic Eng- lish. Their study shows that a wide range of opportunities was available, including (a) the provi- sion of assistance in decoding academic terms and instructions, (b) the clarification of pronun- ciation and meaning, (c) help with the conven- tions of written English, and (d) invitations to contribute to the ongoing task. Jacob et al. con- clude that

Cooperative learning gave L2 learners a wide range of opportunities to acquire academic English ... which included both input and output opportunities, with L2 learners helping others as much as they were helped. However, except for help with decoding academic terms, the various kinds of opportunities occurred relatively infrequently. Moreover, there were some missed opportunities... (p. 253)

In the present study, we, too, observed considerable variation from student pair to student pair in how they approached the task and how they carried it out. This is shown in the classroom- level data provided.

In our current research, our theoretical orientation is towards understanding why collaborative tasks might promote L2 learning. Our research is concerned with whether these tasks in fact do promote learning. Our practical interest is in the feasibility of implementing such proce- dures in an ongoing classroom of active French immersion students.

THE STUDY

Design

The data to be analyzed in this article were col- lected in the context of a larger study involving four grade 8 French immersion classes, each un- dergoing a different treatment. The class focused on here was given ajigsaw task. In this task, student dyads received a set of numbered pictures (each member of the dyad got half the pictures) that told a story. The students were to work out the story together and then write it out. Prior to doing the task, the class was given a short minilesson (5 minutes) on French reflexive verbs.

Time Frame and Activities

The time frame and activities of the study are shown in Table 1. In Week 1, a pretest (described below) was given. In Week 2, a session was held to familiarize the students with the jigsaw task. The students were first given a minilesson to focus their attention on the agreement of adjectives (in this case, all colors) with nouns. Following this, the students worked in pairs with a series of pictures, generating the story told by the pictures and then writing it as ajointly constructed story.

In the third week, a prerecorded minilesson about French reflexive verbs (5 minutes) was presented on video. The video also showed two students working together to reconstruct a story from a series of pictures (5 minutes); their interaction was intended to serve as a model for what the students were to do when they received their pictures. The modeling included dialogue about linguistic form and grammatical rules. Next, the pictures (provided in Appendix A) were distrib-

TABLE 1 Research Time Frame and Events

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5

Pretests Informal Videotaped Tapes Posttests (oral developed from instructor-led lesson and transcribed and and written) pilot study were training session instructions: class-specific administered administered Modeling of posttests

task developed performance

Task done in Task done in pairs pairs and tape-

recorded

(Focus on (Focus on adjective reflexive agreement) verbs)




uted so that one student in each pair received pictures numbered 1, 3, 5, and 7 and the other student received pictures 2, 4, 6, and 8. Taking turns, the students first generated the story orally and then wrote it out. As the students worked in pairs, their conversations were tape-recorded. This was a large class of 35 students and all recording had to be done simultaneously in the classroom (no other space was available in this overcrowded school). Even with our best (we think heroic) efforts to tape-record under these conditions, the data from five pairs of students were lost due to loud background noise and students playing with the tape recorders.

In the fourth week, the tapes were transcribed. Based on the content of the taped oral interactions, additional test items were developed to be included in the posttest. In the fifth week, the posttest, which included all pretest items and the new posttest items, was administered.

Participants

The students were grade 8 students who had been in an early French immersion program since kindergarten. All of their initial instruction, through grade 3, had been in French. After that, instruction in English was introduced and by grade 8, approximately 50% of their instruction was in English, 50% in French. During the time spent in French, the teaching of academic content in French, along with French language arts, was the instructional priority.

In spite of the overall experiential nature of L2 learning in immersion, formal grammar instruction occurs in French immersion classrooms. The focus in grammar lessons appears to be on isolated rules, paradigms, and the manipulation of form rather than on relating form to function (Allen, Swain, Harley, & Cummins, 1990). There

are few materials for the teaching of grammar that have been produced expressly for the immersion classroom, so L1 teaching materials and teacher-made activities are frequently used. As Kowal and Swain (1997) note, "It is highly likely that students entering the intermediate grades (grades 7-9) will have been exposed to an eclec- tic language-teaching approach consisting of learner-centred activities fortified with a regular dose of traditional, prescriptive grammar activities" (p. 288).

In this article, we examine in depth the language-related episodes (for a definition, see the section on "Data Analysis and Results") occurring in the conversations of one pair of students as they carry out the jigsaw task based on the pictures in Appendix A. From those pairs for which we had a complete data set, we chose a pair of students whose written story was much better than average, yet where a difference in proficiency levels suggested that a possible "expert/novice" re- lationship might exist. Listening to the taped interaction, however, suggests that neither student dominated during their pair work and that both contributed in important ways to the collaborative activity.

The information used to select the student pair (pretest scores and their teacher's ratings of overall ability in French) is given in Table 2. Table 2 also shows the average score and rating on these measures for the students in the class for whom we also have usable recordings, as well as the ranges observed within the class.

The classroom teacher had rated each student in his class on a 7-point scale, with 7 representing the highest proficiency level. For the pair that we selected (given the pseudonyms Kim and Rick), the teacher's ratings of overall ability in French indicated that Kim was stronger than Rick; the pretest scores reflect the teacher's judgment. In

TABLE 2 Test Scores and Teacher Ratings for Kim and Rick and Their Class

Target Pair Class (n = 24)

Range Average

Kim Rick Highest Lowest

Pretest (Total Correct) (Max. = 72)a 70 51 70 33 48.0

Posttest (Total Correct) (Max. = 102)a 95 63 95 58 72.0

Teacher's Rating of Overall Ability in Frenchb 7 5 7 2 4.9 1.7.7.1......

Note. a The pre-and posttest scores cannot be compared directly because the posttest includes additional class-specific items. b 7-point scale with 7 representing the highest proficiency level.




fact, Kim obtained the highest pre- and posttest scores in the class and was one of two students to be given a rating of 7 by her teacher. Rick is rated as average with respect to the rest of the class in overall ability in French.

Pre- and Posttests

We conducted a pilot study with the set of pictures shown in Appendix A with a different class of grade 8 immersion students than those involved in the main study. Based on the transcribed tape- recorded interactions of the students in the pilot classroom, and on the assumption that the content of some of these interactions would be similar between the pilot students and the main study students, a pretest was constructed for use in the main study. The three item types used are illus- trated in Figure 1.

The first item type (Type A) was used because discussion about the gender of nouns occurred quite frequently in the students' conversations. Type A items require students to choose the mas- culine or feminine form of the indefinite article (un/une) or to indicate that they do not know (Je ne sais pas).

The second item type (Type B) was intended to capture movement along a continuum of not knowing something or not being certain of something to greater certainty. Thus, Type B items in- volve a "certainty scale" in which students evaluate the grammaticality of a given sentence by indicating that it is definitely wrong (certainement incorrect), probably wrong (probablement incorrect), probably correct (probablement correct), or definitely correct (certainement correct). Students also had the option of indicating that they do not know (Je ne sais pas). Aspects of many of the sentences judged in this way had, in one way or another, been a point of focus for some students in the pilot study.

The third item type (Type C) was initially constructed in order to allow for the measurement of aspects of vocabulary knowledge. Type C items are multiple choice in format (4 choices). Many of the distractors had appeared in the conversations of the students in the pilot study. In the item depicted in Figure 1, students must recognize l'oreiller as the correct word for "pillow." As mentioned above, based on the content of

the conversations of the student pairs that were tape-recorded in the third week of the study, additional test items were developed and added to the pretest items in order to form the posttest administered in the fifth week. Because the tran- scriptions and new item development were done under considerable time pressure (approximately

10 days for a total of 39 pairs across all classes), and because the identification of language-related episodes in the conversations of these L2 speakers turned out to be a complex and time- consuming task, only the clearest and most obvi- ous examples were incorporated into items for the posttest.

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Language-Related Episodes

Although the tapes of each pair of students had been transcribed immediately following their recording, a second transcriber later checked each tape at a more leisurely pace. Because the pair considered in this article consisted of a male and a female student, we were able to identify the speakers and relate each one's part in the dialogue to test performance.

Below, we examine Kim and Rick's dialogue in terms of language-related episodes (LREs) in an attempt to understand their conversation as L2 learning. A LRE episode is defined as any part of a dialogue where the students talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or correct themselves or others (Swain & Lapkin, 1995).2

For all the student pairs, LREs were classified as either "lexis-based" or "form-based." The lexis- based LREs involved students seeking French vocabulary or choosing among competing French vocabulary items. The form-based LREs involved students focusing on spelling or an aspect of French morphology, syntax, or discourse, usually in the context of writing out their story rather than in the initial telling of it. The interrater re- liability obtained in the identification and categorization of LREs for Kim and Rick was 100%, following considerable discussion about the identification and categorization of the LREs of all the student dyads.

The results are discussed in the following order: First, in order to place Kim and Rick in context and to indicate the variation in task performance amongst student dyads, we provide general information about what the other student dyads in this class did on the same task. Sec- ond, we examine in detail selected LREs from excerpts of Kim and Rick's conversation.

Variation in Task Performance

Table 3 presents information about aspects of the performance of student pairs (n = 12). The stories written collaboratively by each pair of stu-




FIGURE 1 Examples of Test Item Types

Type A. Pour chaque mot franCais ci-dessous, choisissez la forme correcte de l'article indefini (un, une) et cochez la case appropriee. Si vous ne savez pas, cochez la case Je ne sais pas a droite. (For each French word below, choose the correct form of the indefinite article [a, an] and mark the appropriate box. If you do not know, mark the box I do not know at right.)

un une mot Je ne sais pas

couverture

gant

chandail

table

Type B. Pour chaque phrase ci-dessous, indiquez si la phrase est correcte ou incorrecte selon l'image. In- diquezjusqu'a quel point vous etes certain de votre reponse en cochant la case appropri&e. Dans chaque groupe il y a au moins une phrase correcte, mais il est aussi possible d'avoir plusieurs phrases qui sont correctes dans chaque groupe. (For each sentence below, indicate whether the sentence is correct or incorrect according to the picture. Indicate how certain you are of your answer by marking the appropriate box. In each group there is at least one correct sentence, but it is also possible to have several correct sentences in each group.)

Certainement Probablement Probablement Certainment Je ne correct correct incorrect incorrect sais pas

1. Le clown sort de la boite.

2. Le clown se sort de la boite.

Type C. Choisissez la meilleure reponse dans chaque groupe. Cochez la case approprie ta droite de la phrase. (Choose the best answer in each group. Mark the appropriate box to the right of each sentence.)

1. Voila mon horloge. [ ] 2. Voilat mon reveille-matin. [ ] 3. Voila mon rive-matin. [ ] 4. Voila ma cloche. [ ]

I-~

Note. English translations (in parentheses) not supplied to students.




dents were rated by two French immersion teachers. They rated the stories on a 5-point scale with 1 representing very poor performance and 5 representing excellent performance on five dimen- sions: content, organization, vocabulary, morphology, and syntax. In addition, the number of idea units (maximum of 21) was counted. Table 3 shows the ratings given to these aspects of Kim and Rick's story, the range of ratings for the student pairs in their class, and the average ratings. As can be seen, Kim and Rick's story was highly rated. It is provided as it was written, with a translation, in Appendix B.

The average time students spent on task was approximately 10.2 minutes (SD= 6.9). Kim and Rick spent the most amount of time on task: 23 minutes. The least amount of time spent on task was 3.5 minutes. The average number of LREs was 8.8 (SD = 8.0), with a range of 26 to 1. Kim and Rick produced 23 LREs. The average number of form- based LREs was 4.8 (SD = 4.5), with a range of 15 to 1. Kim and Rick produced 15. The average number of lexis-based LREs was 4.0 (SD = 3.7), with a range of 12 to 0. Kim and Rick produced 8.

As a further indication of variation among pairs, one pair spent approximately 17 minutes on task and generated 2 LREs, whereas another pair spent approximately 4 minutes on task and generated 5 LREs. In spite of this variation, we found a correlation between time on task and number of LREs of .78 (p = .002).

It is interesting to note that, although the correlation between pretest scores (total for each pair) and the number of LREs was not significant (.41; p = .10), the correlation between posttest scores (total for each pair) and the number of LREs was significant (.62; p = .04). This suggests that, quantitatively at least, the number of LREs and the posttest scores are positively related. The qualitative analysis of individual LREs provided in the next section suggests that the LREs may have positively influenced the posttest scores.

Kim and Rick's LREs

In the qualitative analyses that follow, a selec- tion of Kim and Rick's LREs are discussed in terms of the three strands of research as they

TABLE 3 Performance of Student Pairs

Target Pair Class (N= 12 dyads)

Range Average

Highest Lowest

Ratings of Story Writtena

Content 5b 5 1 2.9

Organization 4.5 4.5 1 3.1

Vocabulary 5 5 1 3.1

Morphology 5 5 1 2.9

Syntax 5 5 1 2.8

Number of Idea Units 16 19 7 12.5 (Max. = 21)

Time on Task (in Minutes) 23 23 3.5 10.2

#LREsc 23 26 1 8.8

#Form-Based LREs 15 15 1 4.8

#Lexis-Based LREs 8 12 0 4.0

Note. a 5-point scale with 1 representing very poor performance and 5 representing excellent performance. b Average of two raters' ratings (never more than 1 point apart). c LREs = Language-related episodes.




appear in the literature section of this article: (a) dialogue as an enactment of mental processes, (b) dialogue as occasions for L2 learning, and (c) LREs and their implications for classroom-based research.

Dialogue as an Enactment of Mental Processes. Sev- eral excerpts from Kim and Rick's transcribed interaction will be examined as instantiations of the following mental processes that mediate L2 learning: (a) generating alternatives (or hypothesis generation), (b) assessing alternatives (or hypothesis testing), and (c) applying rules or ex- tending knowledge to new L2 contexts (Swain & Lapkin, 1995). We will also point to other ways in which Kim and Rick's language use mediates their learning; that is, ways in which their language use serves as a tool supporting L2 learning by consciously singling out the L2 as an object to be monitored, reflected upon, and manipulated.

Excerpt A contains parts of two LREs. The first relates to the use of reveille-matin: Turns 2-4, 9, 55-72, and 92-95 were all considered as part of a single LRE. Turns 68-72 and 92-93 also consti- tute part of a second LRE focusing on le sonnement.

Excerpt A: Turn 2 Kim: On peut pas diterminer qu'est-ce que

c'est. (One can't figure out what it is.)

3 Rick: Riveille-matin. (Alarm clock.)

4 Kim: Et il y a un roveille-matin rouge... sur une table brune, et le roveille- matin dit six heures, et c'est tout. (And there is a red alarm clock

. on a brown table, and the alarm clock says six o'clock, and that's all.)

This exchange continues for another four turns, with Kim using "roveille-matin" three more times and Rick once more; Rick then, for some reason, switches to "la/le rove-matin"3 in Turn 9. His hesi- tation in producing it suggests his uncertainty. Turn 9 Rick: Elle est en train de dormir apris que

... la rove-matin est encore sonne. Et le re-. . . rove-matin dit six heures un. (She is sleeping after the alarm clock rang again. And the alarm clock says one minute after six o'clock.)

This uncertainty continues:

Turn 55 Kim: ... ily a un roveille-matin. (... there is an alarm clock.)

56 Rick: Riveille-matin ?

(Alarm clock?) 57 Kim: Riveille-matin.

(Alarm clock.) Turn 66 Rick: Se riveille a cause... du son...

(Wakes up because . . . of the sound. ..)

67 Kim: Riveille-matin. (Alarm clock.)

68 Rick: A cause du. ... (Because of...)

69 Kim: Du roveille-matin qui sonne? Does that sound OK? (Of the alarm-clock that rings? Does that sound OK?)

70 Rick: Or what about ... Jacqueline se live a cause du... du riveille-. .. yeah, quz sonne. (Or what about . . . Jacqueline [the girl in their story] gets up because of the ... of the alarm-... yeah, that rings.)

71 Kim: OK. Or you can say du reveille- matin or du sonnement du reveille- matin. (OK. Or you can say of the alarm clock or the ring of the alarm clock.)

72 Rick: No, roveille-matin qui sonne. (No, alarm clock that rings.)

Turn 92 Rick: Sur la rev-. . .rove-matin. (On the alarm clock.)

93 Kim: Sur le roveille-matin pour arriter le sonnement. (On the alarm clock to stop the ring.)

94 Rick: Rve-matin ? (Alarm clock?)

95 Kim: REVEILLE-matin. (Alarm clock.) [Stresses compo- nent meaning "wake."]

We do not know why Rick sometimes used "reve- matin" after he, himself, initially suggested using "reveille-matin" to Kim (Turn 3). However, it is clear from the dialogue that Rick is uncertain as to which is the correct vocabulary item. This is indicated by the pauses prior to, or even during, the use of "reve-matin" (Turns 9 and 92) and "riveille-matin" (Turn 70); by his need for reassur- ance before writing "riveille-matin" (Turn 56); and finally by overtly asking if "rive-matin" is OK (Turn 94) and getting immediate feedback from Kim that it should be "REVEILLE- matin." In writing the story, Rick correctly uses "roveille-matin" three times, although it is misspelled each time as " riveil-matin."




There was a relevant multiple-choice pre- and posttest item. Students saw a picture of an alarm clock and were asked to choose the best response from:

1. Voild mon horloge. 2. Voilk mon reveille-matin. 3. Voild mon reve-matin. 4. Voild ma cloche.

As a pretest item, Kim correctly chose reveille- matin and Rick chose reve-matin. In the posttest, both students chose the correct response.

In this collaborative dialogue, we are able to observe change in Rick's use of the correct term for "alarm clock." It is not a one-time shift from wrong to right, but a wavering between alternatives. The source of his learning is not only input, although Kim used "reveille-matin" 17 times during their entire conversation. Nor was the source of his learning only output, although it may have been Rick's attempt to write it (Turn 56) that focused his attention on his own uncertainty about which term to use. We wish to argue that it is the joint construction of knowledge that resulted from Rick's questioning and Kim's responses that, in part, accounts for Rick's shift from incorrect to correct usage. Here Rick's questions serve as hypotheses and Kim's responses serve to confirm or disconfirm them.

The sonnement LRE (in Turns 66-72 and con- tinued in Turns 92 and 93) is particularly interesting because le sonnement is not a word in French (le son or la sonnerie are the relevant words here). Although the word sonnement does not exist in French, Kim, in creating this word, ap- plies a productive morpho-phonological rule in French (-ment is a suffix which marks many mas- culine nouns). Elsewhere in the transcript, Rick questions whether it is "la sonnement" or "le sonnement," and Kim immediately assures him that it is "LE sonnement." Here we see Kim and Rick applying rules to new contexts, albeit incorrectly. They solve a lexical problem in much the same way as native speakers might coin a new word, by using their existing language knowledge as a tool to create new knowledge.

In addition, Turns 69-72 provide clear examples of language used as a tool to regulate Kim's and Rick's cognitive activity. Here Kim and Rick use their L1 to help them to consider what they are trying to express in their L2 by setting up their L2 as an object to be reflected upon and manipulated. Kim asks "Does that sound OK?" (Turn 69). Rick responds with "Or what about...?" (Turn 70). Kim replies "OK. Or you can say 'X' or 'Y'" (Turn 71). Rick, however,

prefers his own rendition (Turn 72) and writes it down. This, too, is an example of collaborative dialogue, where Kim and Rick stretch their IL in the generation of new vocabulary and alternative subordinate structures.

Excerpt B is interesting because Kim proposes "garcon" (boy) and Rick suggests a refinement, "gars," which represents a more informal register that is certainly appropriate in this context.

Excerpt B: Kim: ... elle voit un garcon qui. ..

(... she sees a boy who ...) Rick: un GARS.

(a GUY) [emphasis on "guy"] Kim: OK, un gars.

(OK, a guy.) In this LRE (Excerpt B), although no metalin- guistic terminology is used explicitly, Rick and Kim are nevertheless talking about register variation. This LRE illustrates how a task of this sort draws on the students' understanding of the rela- tionships among meaning, form, and function in context. Excerpt C relates to the meaning and syntax of the verb suivre (to follow):

Excerpt C: Rick: Elle se... et elle se. .. how do you say fol-

low? (She [reflexive pronoun] ... and she [reflexive pronoun] ... how do you say follow?)

Kim: Hmmm? Rick: How do you say follow? Kim: Suit.

(Follows.) Rick: Suit. Elle se suit or elle suit ?

(Follows. She follows [reflexive form] or she follows? [nonreflexive form])

Kim: Elle se. . . elle LE suive. (She [reflexive pronoun] ... she follows HIM.)

Rick: Elle le? (She [follows] him?)

Kim: Elle LE suive. (She follows HIM.)

Rick: Jusqu 'ci l'cole. (To school.)

In asking which of two alternative forms to use ("Elle se suit" or "Elle suit"), Rick is consciously drawing attention to this linguistic structure and articulating two different hypotheses, from which Kim chooses the correct one, supplying the correct pronoun object as she does so. Kim's intona- tional emphasis on the direct object pronoun le may help to make the syntactic frame of suivre




more salient for Rick. Rick writes the syntactic structure correctly and on the relevant posttest items (see Table 4), although not certain, correctly marks Le chat se suit (The cat follows itself) as probably wrong and Le chat les suit (The cat follows them) and Le chat suit les chiens (The cat follows the dogs) as definitely correct.

What Kim does in this LRE is a particularly interesting feat from a processing perspective. She seems to know that suivre is a transitive verb and therefore takes a direct object pronoun rather than a reflexive pronoun. She thus switches from using the reflexive pronoun to a direct object pronoun, le, emphasizing it for Rick's benefit and perhaps also for her own benefit. In doing so, however, Kim "loses control" over the correct form of the verb. This would appear to be an excellent example of cognitive overload: processing capacity is limited and in carrying out this com- plicated processing operation, Kim is unable also to process the verb form correctly, falling back on the form of the high frequency -er verb type rather than using the correct present tense of suivre, which she had just produced.4

In Excerpt D, two alternatives are generated and assessed. Each of the subordinate clauses that the students generate and assess ("pour se laver" [to wash herself] and "ozu elle se lave" [where she gets washed]) is acceptable and accurate in this context.

Excerpt D: Kim: Et. .. et, yeah, et s'en va au salle de bain.

(And ... and, yeah, and goes to the bathroom.)

Rick: Salle de bain. . . pour se la- (Bathroom ... to wa-)

Kim: OU elle se lave. (WHERE she gets washed.)

Rick chooses to write Kim's solution. Each of these grammatical alternatives also serves a discourse function, allowing Kim and Rick to se- quence the elements of their narrative.

Excerpt E relates to the personal care verb se brosser (to brush). French has many verbs (comb- ing hair, brushing teeth, washing one's face, etc.) that must be expressed by the reflexive form of the relevant verb.

Excerpt E: Rick: ... et brosse.

(... and brushes.) Kim: Et SE brosse les dents... les ch-. No, wait a

second. Isn't it elle se brosse les dents? And it's SE peigne. Elle se peigne. (And brushes [emphasizes the reflexive] her teeth ... her hair. No, wait a second. Isn't it she brushes her teeth? And it's combs [again emphasizes the reflexive]. She combs her hair.)

In this excerpt, as in Excerpt A, we again see how language is mediating task performance. It is so clear here because of Kim's use of English. Kim tells herself (not Rick, although it may have an ef- fect on Rick) to "wait a second." This act of self-

TABLE 4 Kim and Rick's Performance on Certainty Scale Items Relating to the Reflexive Construction Posttest Item Correct Response Actual Response

Kim Rick

re: Excerpt C

Le chat les suit. definitely correct definitely correct definitely correct Le chat se suit. definitely wrong definitely wrong probably wrong Le chat suit les chiens. definitely correct definitely correct definitely correct re: Excerpt E

Je me coupe les ongles. * definitely correct definitely correct probably correct (same on pretest) (same on pretest)

Elle se lave le visage. definitely correct definitely correct definitely correct (same on pretest) (same on pretest)

Jacques se peigne les cheveux. definitely correct definitely correct definitely correct Je me coupe mes ongles. definitely wrong definitely wrong probably correct re: Excerpt G

Le clown sort de la boite. definitely correct definitely correct definitely correct Le clown se sort de la boite. definitely wrong definitely wrong probably correct Note. *This is an analogue forJe me brosse les cheveux/les dents, in that reflexive verbs relating to personal care be- have syntactically in the same way in French. Therefore this and the other items in this set relate to Excerpt E.




regulation gives her time to work out the correct form. English (her L1) frames her French and sets it up as an object to be manipulated and reflected upon. Her "Isn't it elle se brosse les dents? And it's SE peigne" is not language being used to communicate with Rick; it is language being used to hypothesize and to confirm.

In their story, Rick has correctly written these personal care verbs in their reflexive form. On the four relevant posttest items (see Table 4), Kim is both correct and confident of her responses. Rick, however, is correct and certain of his correctness on only two of the four items, those using the very same verbs (se laver and se peigner) that had been the focus of their attention at some point in their conversation, and that Rick had written correctly in their narrative. With the sentences 'Je me coupe les/mes ongles,"5 which introduced a new verb, Rick was less certain. Per- haps his posttest responses indicate a tentative extension of knowledge to new L2 contexts.

Dialogue as Occasions for L2 learning. We have already cited LREs for which there were both pre- and posttest items (reveille-matin and analogues for se brosser) and for which only posttest items ex- isted (suivre and other reflexive verbs). In the for- mer cases, it will be recalled, there is evidence of learning on Rick's part, because he moves from an incorrect to a correct response from pre- to posttest.6 In this section, we examine other examples where learning has occurred. The first of these is found in Excerpt E

In Excerpt F, Rick falters as he realizes that he does not know the word for "pillow:"

Excerpt F: Rick: Et elle est encore au. .. au. .. uh ... d l'autre

bout du lit avec, avec ses pieds sur le. .. sur la. .. how do you say "pillow"? (And she is already at the other end of the bed with, with her feet on the ... on the ... how do you say "pillow"?)

Kim: Oreiller. (Pillow.)

Rick: Avec ses pieds sur l'oreiller. (With her feet on the pillow.)

Later, Kim uses the word "oreiller," which gives Rick the opportunity to check his comprehen- sion and, as he is writing, to write it down:

Kim: Quelque chose uh . . . est sur l'. . . quelque chose est sur l'oreiller. (Something... is on the..,. something is on the pillow.)

Rick: Is that l'oreiller? (pointing to something in the picture.)

(Is that the pillow?) Kim: No, this is l'oreiller.

(No, this is the pillow.) Rick: Pillow? Kim: Yeah, pillow's oreiller.

There was no pretest item, although the above dialogue would suggest that Kim would have got- ten the item correct and Rick might not have. On the posttest item (see Item C in Figure 1), both students choose the correct response. The word oreiller is also used correctly in their written text (see Appendix B).

Excerpt G focuses on the verb sortir, which does not exist in the reflexive form in French.

Excerpt G: Rick: Un bras. . . wait... mecanique... sort?

(An arm . . .wait ... a mechanical [arm] comes out?)

Kim: Sort, yeah. (Comes out, yeah.)

Rick: Se sort? (Comes out?) [incorrect reflexive form]

Kim: No, sort. (No, comes out.) [correct nonreflexive form]

As Rick produces the first utterance in this LRE, he orders himself, and possibly Kim, to "wait," giving himself time to work out what follows. His rising intonation suggests that once again he is testing a hypothesis. As shown in Table 4, both Kim and Rick judge correctly "Le clown sort de la boite" (The clown comes out of the box) as definitely correct (see Test Item B in Figure 1). Kim correctly marks the related item "Le clown se sort de la boite" as definitely wrong. Rick, however, marks it as probably correct. We consider it note- worthy that he did not mark it as definitely correct. In other words, the choice of the response as "probable" rather than "definite" suggests that Rick has moved toward recognizing sortir as grammatical and se sortir as ungrammatical as a result of the collaborative reconstruction of this part of the narrative.

LREs and Their Implications for Classroom Practice. One of the LREs in particular gives rise to an important pedagogical issue related to collaborative work. In Excerpt H, Rick suggests s'en aller and Kim proposes marcher to express the notion of walking to school:

Excerpt H: Kim: [Elle voit un] gars

(She sees a guy)




Rick: ... gars, qui s'en va a l'ecole (guy, who is going to school)

Kim: qui marche vers l'cole.. .marche (who is walking towards school, walking)

Both verbs exist in the French lexicon, but in this context, it is nonnative-like to use marcher.7 Per- haps because marcher is the alternative that Kim (the usual "expert" in this pair) suggests, and because it conforms to their L1 usage, it is the alternative they agree on and write in their story. Here is an example where the solution that the pair reaches is wrong even though a correct alternative has been suggested.

Without teacher feedback, both students will either remain uncertain about the functional dis- tinction between marcher and s'en aller or they will have "learned" the wrong lexeme, given the context. For this reason, we believe that the sort of task used in our data collection must be followed by opportunities for teacher feedback on the recorded oral dialogue or the written product, or both.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

The data offered in this article provide support for a theoretical orientation toward viewing dialogue as both a means of communication and a cognitive tool. In the LREs discussed here, we see Kim and Rick, as theyjointly develop the story line and write it out, using language to co-construct the language they need to express the meaning they want and to coconstruct knowledge about language. Their dialogue serves as a tool both for L2 learning and for communicating with each other. In Kim and Rick's language use, we can see simultaneously the process of language learning and the communicative outcome.

Like the students in the Goss et al. (1994) study, Kim and Rick use language as they would normally and we are able to observe evidence of cognitive processes instantiated in their talk. They continually generate alternatives, assess alternatives, and apply the resulting knowledge to solve a linguistic problem. Often Rick generates alternatives (e.g., "le gars" in Excerpt B, the hesi- tation over reflexive/nonreflexive forms), and Kim helps him to assess these. In many cases, she provides correct information to Rick about the linguistic form or rule he has brought to their joint attention. Although Kim generally takes the lead, Rick makes equally important contributions (it is he, for example, who suggests the use of "le gars" in Excerpt B). Applying their knowledge to new contexts may also create new jointly

constructed knowledge, as we saw in the sonnement LRE, where a productive rule of word formation in French was applied and its gender inferred from a characteristic suffix. Kim and Rick also use their L1, a mediational tool fully available to them, to regulate their own behavior, to focus attention on specific L2 structures, and to generate and assess alternatives.

Kim and Rick's interaction supports the value and unique role of collaborative activity in the classroom as articulated by Wells (1996):

... it is not necessary for there to be a group member who is in all respects more capable than the others. ... in tackling a difficult task as a group, although no member has expertise beyond his or her peers, the group as a whole, by working at the problem together, is able to construct a solution that none could have achieved alone. In other words, each is "forced to rise above himself" and, by building on the contributions of individual members, the group collectively con- structs an outcome that no single member envisaged at the outset of the collaboration. (p. 10)

From a research perspective, this study provides empirical data to suggest that collaborative dialogue (consisting of one or more LREs) is a use- ful concept for understanding L2 learning. In terms of methodology, we think it would be valu- able in future work to combine an analysis of students' collaborative dialogue with follow-up inter- views in order to derive a more fine-grained understanding of the mental processes discussed above.

In the data analyzed here, we were able to link each student to his or her test performance because of the gender difference in the student dyad and because it was clear which student was writing. In the majority of cases, it was impossible to identify the individual students in their dyads, so that test data could not be interpreted in relation to individual contributions to dialogues. It will be important to incorporate technical im- provements in future studies.

Kim and Rick work effectively in their dyad, and both are strong students. From a pedagogical perspective, one wonders if their relative suc- cess would extend to student dyads with different proficiency levels. Detailed analyses of such student dyads (e.g., two low-proficiency students) are needed to help teachers make principled decisions about how to group students effectively. Affective variables also appear to be key: On several occasions, Rick looks to Kim for support (e.g., the riveille-matin example) as well as for information.

One of the striking features of our data is their variability. Like Foster (1993), we found some pairs of students whose low production of LREs




and limited time on task suggest that students approach the task differently and will profit differ- entially from the collaborative activities implemented in classrooms. In future studies, it will be important to interview students shortly after such activities have been completed to discover, for example, what aspects individual students find appealing or unappealing, conducive or un- conducive to learning. Also, it may be that collaborative tasks such as the one used in this study should be implemented selectively or only with several dyads at a time, so that the teacher can monitor on-task behavior and provide linguistic guidance. We hope that the kind of information presented in this article will better equip teachers to provide the sustained intervention needed to foster continuing target language development.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was made possible by a grant (#410- 93-0050) to Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Many people contributed to the data collection, transcription, and analysis of the main study in which the two students described in this article partici- pated. We would particularly like to thank Doug Hart, Joan Howard, Shelley Taylor, and Iva Baltova, who have been unfailing in their help, even when called upon at untimely moments. Iva Baltova also drew the cartoons shown in Appendix A. For comments on a draft version of this article, we are grateful to Alister Cumming, Rick Donato, Birgit Harley, Jim Lantolf, Tere Pica, Miles Turnbull, and the editors of this special issue, Sue Gass and Alison Mackey. A special thank you is also ex- tended to Gordon Wells, who allowed Merrill to sit in on his course on Sociocultural Theory and engage in collaborative dialogue with him and the class, while she was on sabbatical during 1996.

NOTES

S"Joint activity" can include interacting with text. In some theories this would be called "individual learn-

ing." We would argue, along with Wertsch (1991) and others, that interacting with text is a social activity.

2 Usually we were able to identify which of the two students were speaking (although the similarity of voices at this age sometimes created problems in identification). However, we were not usually able to relate accurately the student speaking in a dyad to his or her set of test scores. Being able to do so was a fortuitous result of the dyad we selected.

The word rive means dream and the compound rive- matin is not a word. We believe that Rick, in using "rWve-

matin," means alarm clock, and we have used that meaning in the translations. A number of people who commented on a first draft of this article suggested that Rick may have been influenced by the relevant pretest item in which one of the distractors (derived from the pilot data) was Voild mon r?ve-matin. This is certainly a possibility and does not detract from our argument. Indeed, Rick may have taken away from the pretest the knowledge that reve-matin is a possible way to say "alarm clock." The fact that our readers were keen on this explanation for Rick's use of r~e-matin suggests that, implicitly, they have accepted the possibility that even one single test item of many may lead to change in a learner's linguistic performance. This parallels our claim that learning occurs in dialogue. As we wish to argue, at least some learning occurs in performance, not afterwards.

4 There are three verb conjugations in French: first conjugation -er verbs such as donner, second conjugation -ir verbs such as finir, and third conjugation -re verbs such as suivre. Of the three verb conjugations, the first is the most frequent and is often generalized to verbs of the second and third conjugations (Harley & Swain, 1978.)

5 The second of these (je me coupe mes ongles) is ungrammatical because the possessor of the nails is expressed in the pronoun me, and may not be expressed again in the possessive adjective mes.

6 As each LRE represents the collaborative working through of a linguistic problem that Kim and Rick encounter, it is of note that in Kim and Rick's 23 LREs, 21 resulted in a correct solution, 1 in a wrong solution (see Excerpt H), and 1 in no solution at all. Of the 23 LREs, there were 15 relevant posttest items. Of those 15, Kim was always accurate in her response. Rick was either accurate or marked a "probable" category (see Item Type B in Figure 1). That is, Rick never marked "definitely correct" when the accurate response was "definitely wrong," and he never marked "definitely wrong" when the accurate response was "definitely correct."

7 In English, "she walks to school" is grammatical, and it is this structure that is likely being incorrectly transferred to the French elle marche d l'ecole. In French, the correct structure would be elle s'en va d l'ecole. For a discussion of this issue and of what French immersion students generally do when using verbs of motion in French, see Harley (1989).

REFERENCES

Allen, P., Swain, M., Harley, B., & Cummins, J. (1990). Aspects of classroom treatment: Towards a more comprehensive view of second language education. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 57-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cummins, J. (1990). From the inner city to the global




village: The microcomputer as a catalyst for collaborative learning and cultural interchange. Language Culture and Curriculum, 1, 1-13.

de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46, 529-555.

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Donato, R., & Lantolf,J. (1990). The dialogic origins of L2 monitoring. In L. E Bouton & Y Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 1, pp. 83-97). Urbana-Champaign, IL: Division of English as an International Language.

Foster, P. (1993). Discoursal outcomes of small group work in an EFL classroom: A look at the interaction of non-native speakers. Thames Valley Univer- sity Working Papers in English Language Teaching, 2, 1-30.

Goss, N., Ying-Hua, Z., & Lantolf, J. (1994). Two heads may be better than one: Mental activity in second-language grammaticality judgments. In E. Tarone, S. Gass, & A. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp. 263- 286). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Harley, B. (1989). Transfer in the written composition of French immersion students. In D. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Transfer in language production (pp. 3-19). New York: Ablex.

Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1978). An analysis of the verb system used by young learners of French. Inter- language Studies Bulletin, 3, 35-79.

Jacob, E., Rottenberg, L., Patrick, S., & Wheeler, E. (1996). Cooperative learning: Context and opportunities for acquiring academic English. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 253-280.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1986). Cir- cles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.

Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote it in the immersion classroom? In R. K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 284-309). Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press.

Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.

Lantolf, J., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

LaPierre, D. (1994). Language output in a cooperative learning setting: Determining its effects on second language learning. Unpublished master's thesis, On- tario Institute for Studies in Education, Univer- sity of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37-71). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.

Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker

conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141.

Mackey, A. (1995). Stepping up the pace: Input, interaction and interlanguage development: An empirical study of questions in ESL. Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion, University of Sydney, Australia.

Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356.

Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47, 203-211.

Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learn- ing, 44, 493-527.

Platt, E. & Brooks, E B. (1994). The "acquisition-rich environment" revisited. Modern Language Journal, 78, 497-511.

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: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (1997). Collaborative dialogue: Its contribu- tion to second language learning. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 34, 115-132.

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious re- flection. In C. Doughty &J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguis- tics, 16, 371-391.

Vygotsky, L. (1979). Consciousness as a problem of psychology of behavior. Soviet Psychology, 17, 3-35.

Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wells, G. (1996). The zone of proximal development and its implications for learning and teaching. Unpublished manuscript, Ontario Institute for Studies in Edu- cation, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Har- vard University Press.




APPENDIX A Pictures Used by Dyads in Jigsaw Task

1 2

/

31 ( 4

' (j' ~

IZ dc` i'

c

I 6

;i n ,i 7

51 1 61 I A f1

1 * *

II -a ', -.-,, I -

"The tricky alarm clock" ?I. Baltova (1994)




APPENDIX B Kim and Rick's Written Story (exactly as written)

L'histoire de Jacqueline mai 3 1995

Le soleil se leve au matin et c'est une tr's belle journ&e. Jacqueline est en train de dormir dans son lit sous sa couverture bleu. A c6te du lit il y a une petite table brune et en dessus il y a un reveil- matin rouge qui dit 6:00 du matin. Jacqueline se reveille a cause du reveil-matin qui sonne. Sa tate avec les cheveux friss's est '

l'autre bout du lit avec les pieds sur l'oreiller. Elle sort sajambe de la couverture pour pousser un boutton sur le reveil-matin pour arreter le sonnement. Puis elle se met a dormir apres que le sonnement est arrit&. Un bras mechanique sort du reveil matin pour chatouiller le pied de Jacqueline avec une plume qui est tenue par une mainjaune. Elle se 1ive lentement et s'en va a la salle de bain oui elle se live et se brosse les dents et se peigne les cheveux. Puis elle semble desatreuse apres de dormir. Elle est prete pour aller a 1'&cole quand sur la rue elle voit un gars qui marche vers 1'&cole et elle le suive jusqu'a 1'&cole.

English Translation of Kim and Rick's Written Story

The Story ofJacqueline May 3, 1995

The sun rises in the morning and it's a very beautiful day. Jacqueline is sleeping in her bed under her blue blanket. Beside the bed there is a small brown table and on it there is a red alarm clock that says 6 a.m. Jacque- line wakes up because of the alarm clock that is ringing. Her curly-haired head is at the other end of the bed with her feet on the pillow. She sticks her leg out from under the blanket in order to push a button on the alarm clock to stop the ringing. Then she begins sleeping after the ringing has stopped. A mechanical arm comes out of the alarm clock to tickle Jacqueline's foot with a feather that is held by a yellow hand. She gets up slowly and goes to the bathroom where she washes and brushes her teeth and combs her hair. Then she looks disastrous after sleeping. She is ready to go to school when in the street she sees a guy who is walking toward school and she follows him to school.

Upcoming Conference Sessions on Publishing THE MLJEDITOR INVITES READERS TO SESSIONS ON PUBLISHING IN THE MLJ.

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages Chicago, Illinois November 20-22, 1998

[email protected] www.actfl.org

Central States Conference on Foreign Language Teaching Little Rock, Arkansas

April 15-18, 1999 [email protected]



SWAIN_LAPKIN_1998_French Immersion Students Working Together

Documents

Transcript of SWAIN_LAPKIN_1998_French Immersion Students Working Together