Coursehero >> Hawaii >> Hawaii >> PP 2007

Course Hero has millions of student submitted documents similar to the one below including study guides, homework solutions, papers, exam answer keys and textbook solutions.

and Teacher- learner-led discourse as tools for L2 grammatical development in task-based Spanish instruction Paul D. Toth University of Wisconsin-Madison ptoth@wisc.edu 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; Ant n, 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: Calls for further 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 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 They prepared the food. b. Ellos prepararon la comida. AGENT PATIENT They prepared the food. X Ellos se prepararon. AGENT They prepared themselves / each other. X X Se prepar la comida. PATIENT The food was prepared / One prepared food. anticausative se Se cocin la comida. PATIENT The food cooked / was cooked / One cooked food. c. Ellos cocinaron la comida. AGENT PATIENT They cooked the 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 Day Day 1 (Mond a y) Day 2 ( Tu e sd a y) Day 3 (We dn esd a y) Day 4 ( Th u rsd a y) Day 5 (F r iday) Day 6 (Mond a y) Day 7 ( Tu e sd a y) Le s s o n to pi cs Adm in is ter p re t e s t , re view re fle xiv e s e w it h r e m ain ing t im e . In t ro d u ce an d p ra ct ic e im per son a l s e . anticausative se In t ro d u ce an d p ra ct ic e p as s iv e s e . In t ro d u ce an d p ra ct ic e mid d le vo ic e se o f p la n n ed oc curr e n ce s. un Pr a ct ice m idd le v o ice s e w it h ind ire ct ob je ct p ro nou n s. In t ro d u ce an d p ra ct ic e ve rb s o f e m o ti o n w it h s e . Re vi ew w ee k le s s o n, a d m in is ter imm edi a t e p o s t t e s t . s 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 . Se descompusieron las m quinas. Se trae cerveza a todas las fiestas. (One doesn smoke here.) t (The machines broke down.) (Beer is brought to every party.) -3 -3 -3 -2 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 +2 +2 +3 +3 +3 Method: Picture Description Task Sample item from the picture description task el vaso QuickTime and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. romper (the glass, to break) Results: Picture Description Task Statistic Control Pre Post Learner-led Delay Pre Post Teacher-led Delay Pre Post Delay Native Production Task Group Mean Stand. Deviation increase = 0.02 increase = 0.31 increase = 0.46 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.11 0.02 0.08 0.48 0.32 0.33 0.30 0.04 0.10 0.63 0.32 0.50 0.34 0.48 0.20 ANOVA results: Group Results: Picture Description Task 1.00 0.80 e r o c S 0.60 n o i NS mean = 0.48 t c u 0.40 d o r P n 0.20 a e M 0.00 Teacher-led (TLD) Learner-led (LLD) Control (C) Pretest Posttest Time of Test Dela yed Results: GJ Task Statistic Control Pre Post Learner-led Delay Pre Post Teacher-led Delay Pre Post Delay Native GJ Task Group Mean Stand. Deviation increase = 0.09 increase = 0.36 increase = 1.07 0.71 1.18 0.61 1.31 0.80 0.85 0.91 0.94 1.74 0.64 1.27 0.99 0.86 1.01 2.17 0.66 1.93 0.71 2.24 0.75 ANOVA results: Group Results: GJ Task 3.00 t n e m g d u J y t i l a c i t a m m a r G n a e M 2.50 NS mean = 2.24 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 -0.50 Pretest Posttest Time of Test Dela yed Teacher-led (TLD) Learner-led (LLD) Control (C) Results: Transcripts 1. LLD Information gap activity a. Student 1: El vino, la botella se moja la sof . (Oh, ok. The wine, the bottle [se] wets the sofa.) b. Student 2: Moja o mojo? (Wets or wet?) c. Student 1: Se moj . Like it wet the couch. So, la botella se moj 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: Se cay ? f. Student 3: Se cay . g. Student 1: But it didn break the couch. t h. Student 3: No, caer. It fell. Results: Transcripts 2. LLD information gap activity a. Student 1: Qu pas ?Es. . . [Student 3 indicates the windows] Ah, ok. Se, um se, se, cerraron. (Um, I don know. What happened? It Ah, ok. They [se], [se] closed.) t s b. Student 2: Cierran? (They close?) c. Student 1: Cierre, so past tense would be cerraron S . Las ventanas se cerraron. . ( I closes so past tense would be t they closed Yes, the windows closed.) . q. Student 2: En-, entonces, se cierre ? Porque (So, so closes [using the form with diphthong]? Because ) it r. Student 1: Um, cerri I think, is past tense. Cause you don you don con , like in se , t, t the present tense it s cierro but in the past tense it , s cerr . s. Student 3: No cambias, ah, el root , root stem , (You don change the t root , root stem ) , t. Student 1: el verbo, s , en el pasado. Okay, so, se cerr la puerta en tu dibujo. ( the verb, yes, in the past. Okay, so the door closed in your drawing.) Results: Transcripts 3. TLD whole-class collaborative discourse a. Teacher: Venga, vamos a ver. Qu ocurri durante la tormenta? Qu ocurri ? S . (Okay, let's see. What happened during the storm? What happened? Yes?) IRF{Teacher: Bien. En el dibujo B, verdad? En el dibujo B la ventana se abri . En el dibujo A, qu ? c. (Good. In drawing B, right? In drawing B the window [se] opened. In drawing A, what?) d. Student 4: En el dibujo A, la ventana (In drawing A the window ) b. Student 4: Um, la ventana se, um abri . (Um, the window, [se] um opened) e. Teacher: S Se abri ? No. Se (Yes D id it [se] open? No. It [se] ) f. Student 4: No, se ce-, ce-, cerr . (No, it [se] c l-, cl- closed.) Results: Transcripts 3. TLD whole-class collaborative discourse (cont.) g. Teacher: Perfecto En el dibujo A se cerr la ventana y en el dibujo B, se abri . M s? Jim. (Perfect I n drawing A the window [se] closed and in drawing B it [se] opened. What else? Jim.) h. Student 5: Um, en B, la luz, uh, ca-, uh, cay . (Um, in B, the light, uh, f-, uh, fell [incorrect omission of se].) i. Teacher: S [making a falling gesture with her hands, and then pointing toward another learner with his hand up.] j. Student 6: Se cay . (It [se] fell down.) k. Teacher: 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-, abri ? Se, se abri . (The door, uh, o-, opened? It [se] opened.) b. Teacher: 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. Teacher: S e. Student 7: [simultaneously] Se cerr . (It [se] opened.) f. Teacher : Perfecto. La puerta se cerr . (Perfect. The door [se] closed.) Results: Transcripts 5. TLD whole-class collaborative discourse a. Student 1: Um, en dibujo A, um, la lluvia (Um in drawing A, um, the rain ) b. Teacher: Mm-hm c. Student 1: [pause] Se? (got) d. Teacher: No s . Venga, venga. La lluvia qu ? (I don know. Come on, come on. The rain what?) t e. Student 1: moj . (wet) f. Teacher: La lluvia se moj ? (The rain got wet?) g. Student 1: Mm-hm. h. Teacher: La lluvia se moj [making a motion with her hands back toward herself] ? Eso es muy metaf sico. Eso es muy, como, misticismo. C mo que la lluvia ? La lluvia no se moj [again, making a motion with her hands back toward herself]. La luvia, a s misma. (The rain got wet [making a motion with her hands back toward herself] ? That is very metaphsyical. It very, like, mysticism. How could the rain ? The rain didn get itself s t wet [again, making a motion with her hands back toward herself]. The rain, to itself.) Results: Transcripts 5. TLD whole-class collaborative discourse (cont.) i. Student 1: Moj ? Moj . It wet? It wet. j. Teacher: La lluvia moj [making a motion with her hands as if putting the parts of a sentence together qu linearly] ? (The rain got what wet [making a motion with her hands as if putting the parts of a sentence together linearly]?) k. Student 1: C mo se dice carpet ? (How do you say carpet ?) l. Teacher: C mo se dice? (How do you say it?) m. Student 2: El alfombro (The carpet) n. Teacher: Alfombra. Muy bien. La alfombra. La lluvia moj la alfombra. O la alfombra? (Carpet. Very good. The carpet. The rain got the carpet wet. Or the carpet?) o. Student 1: Se moj . (Got wet.) p. Teacher: Perfecto. La alfombra se moj . (Perfect. The carpet got wet.) Results: Transcripts 6. LLD information gap activity Ok, , en la , a. Student 1: (Ok, you could say, maybe, Se se entra viento enterscasa like like ) you could say, maybe, wind [se], [se] the the house, Se, uh, entr , verdad? b. Student 3:(It [se], uh, entered, right?) c. Student 1: Se entr viento en la casa. (The wind [se] entered the house.) d. Student 3: Se entr . (It [se] entered.) e. Student 2: Oh, se Se entr ? (Oh, [se] It [se] entered?) f. Student 1: Se entr . Oh, but would you use with that? se (It [se] entered. Oh but would you use with that?) se Right. Viento entr ,entr en la casa. (Wind enter, entered the house.) g. Student 2: You wouldn t. s h. Student 1: No, because that a subject. Results: Transcripts 7. LLD Information gap activity a a. Student 3: Qu es la palabr para desde aqu a all ? b. Student 1: Derecha ? ( Right [.e., the direction])? i c. Student 3: Derecha. ( Right. ) d. Student 1: Mm-hm, verdad. (Mm-hm, correct.) e. Student 3: S . (Yes.) f. Student 2: Hm. S . (Hm. Yes.) (What is the word for from here to there ?) g. Student 1: Derecha a izquierda. (Right to left) h. Student 3: [simultaneously] Derecha es el verbo? ( Right is the verb?) Results: Transcripts 7. LLD Information gap activity (cont.) i. Student 1: No, no, no. Derecha es el (No, no, no. Right is the ) j. Student 3: The direction. k. Student 1: Yeah, right. Like derecha a izquierda. (Yeah right. Like right to left.) l. Student 3: Qu es ah, el, qu es el verbo? , (What is, ah, the, what is the verb?) m. Student 1: [to Student 2] Tus padres hablan espa ol? (Do your parents speak Spanish? n. Student 2 S . (Yeah.) o. Student 3: [to Student 1] Qu es el verbo? (What is the verb?) Results: Transcripts 7. LLD Information gap activity (cont.) Oh, mojar. Er, no, no, no. Moverse. That it. p. Student 1: (Oh, para mojar,tomojar,to wet. Er, no, no, no. To move. That sit.) for to wet, wet, s q. Student 3: Mo r. Student 1: Moverse. s. Student 3: [writing down the spelling] Eme, o, ve, [All three help with spelling of the verb] t. Student 2: Se movi la sof (The sofa [se] moved ) u. Student 1: Se movi (It [se] moved ) v. Student 2: a la derecha. (to the right.) w. Student 1: a la derecha. Muy bien, Ra l. Eres muy inteligente Hoy! [laughs]. (to the right. Very good, Ra l. You revery intelligent T 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. Adair-Hauck, B., & Donato, R. (1994). Foreign language explanations within the Zone of Proximal Development. Canadian Modern Language Review, 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 Language Journal, 83, 303-318. Brooks, F. B. (1993). Some problems and caveats in 'communicative' discourse: Toward a conceptualization of the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 231-242. Buckwalter, P. (2001). Repair sequences in Spanish L2 dyadic discourse: A descriptive study. Modern Language Journal, 85, 380397. Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Introduction. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 1-20). Harlow, UK: Longman. Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom language acquisition (pp. 42-63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 311-348). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Dobrobie-Sorin, C. (1998). Impersonal se constructions in Romance and passivization of unergatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 399-437. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Ap pel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language learning (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Doughty, C. J. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 256-310). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). "Information gap" tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305325. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385-403. Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323-351. Fotos, S. (2002). Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 135-154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gregg, K. R. (2001). Learnability and second language acquisition theory. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 152-180). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hall, J. K. (1995). "Aw man, where you goin'?": Interaction and the development of L2 interactional competence. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 37-62. Hall, J. K. (2004). "Practicing speaking" in Spanish: Lessons from a high school foreign language classroom. In D. Boxer & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 68-87). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. References Harrington, M. (2001). Sentence processing. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 91-124). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, K. E. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, processing, and working memory in a second language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 199-225. Lee, J. F. (2000). Tasks and communicating in language classrooms. New York: McGraw-Hill. Leemann-Guthrie, E. (1984). Intake, communication, and second-language teaching. In S. Savignon & M. Berns (Eds.), Initiatives in communicative language teaching: A book of readings. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Vol. 379. Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259-278). New York: New York Academy of Sciences. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press. Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207-228. Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123-163). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. McCormick, D. E., & Donato, R. (2000). Teacher questions as scaffolded assistance in an ESL classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 183-202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Montrul, S. (2004). The acquisition of Spanish: Morphosyntactic development in monolingual and bilingual L1 acquisition and adult L2 acquisition. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal, 41, 136-145. Nunan, D. (1990). The questions teachers ask. JALT Journal, 12, 187-202. Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 47-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pica, T. (1987). Second-language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8, 3-21. Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning, processes and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493-527. 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 second language development: Processability theory. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Pritchett, B. L. (1992). Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Raposo, E., & Uriagereka, J. (1996). Indefinite SE. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14, 749-810. Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task-based interaction. ELT Journal, 53, 149-156. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-62. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-82). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391. Toth, P. D. (2004). When grammar instruction undermines cohesion in L2 Spanish classroom discourse. Modern Language Journal, 88, 14-30. van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and authenticity. London: Longman. Wells, G. (1998). Some questions about direct instruction: Why? To whom? How? and When? Language Arts, 76(1), 27-35. Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49, 583-625. Wong, W., & VanPatten, B. (2003). The evidence is IN: Drills are OUT. Foreign Language Annals, 36, 403-423. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100. References

Find millions of documents here - Study Guides, Homework Solutions, Papers, Exam Answer Keys and more. Course Hero has millions of course related materials that will enable you to learn better, faster and get an A in all your courses.
Below is a small sample set of documents: