Language Teaching Research 4,3 (2000); pp. 251–274

Task-based second language learning: the uses of the first language Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto

The present article focuses on the uses of the first language (L1) made by 22 pairs of grade 8 French immersion students as they complete one of two different tasks: a dictogloss and a jigsaw. The outcome of each task is a story written by each student pair. We propose a coding scheme for the uses made of the L1, exemplify them, and report on exploratory analyses intended to describe differences between and within the tasks in terms of the amount of English (L1) used. We also address the relationship between the amount of L1 use and the quality of students’ writing, and the variability in task performance across student pairs.

I Introduction For many, it is a given that the more use made of a second language (L2), the higher the resultant proficiency in that language (see, for example, Carroll, 1975). However, research examining the relationship between first language (L1) and second language use in the context of bilingual education for minority language children (see Cummins, 1981; 1993) makes it quite clear that the development and maintenance of the L1 supports the development of the second language. This leads to the seeming paradox that the more use made of the L1, the higher becomes the learners’ L2 proficiency. In this paper, we will provide data that help to explain this seeming paradox. The data will be interpreted from the perspective of a socio-cultural theory of mind (Wertsch, 1985; Cole, 1996; Lantolf, 2000).1 We begin with a brief description of several studies conducted in a context similar to that of the present research: immersion Address for correspondence: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6, Canada; [email protected] © Arnold 2000

1362–1688(00)LR070.OA

252

Task-based second language learning

programmes. In immersion programmes, the second language is used as the language of instruction for all or part of the educational programme (see Swain and Johnson, 1997, for a complete definition). We then briefly consider the theoretical perspective which has driven the analysis and interpretation of our data as well as the few studies conducted within that framework that have investigated L1 use in second language learning tasks. This is followed by a description of our study and an examination of the ways in which grade 8 French immersion students made use of English, their L1, in completing a task where they were required to write a short story in French. 1 Immersion studies Behan and Turnbull (1997) examined the L1 (English) use of French immersion students in a late immersion programme. The students were in grade 7, and had just begun their French immersion programme in the first term of that year. The task they were asked to do was prepare for an oral presentation in French. They were to work in groups of four students each and to combine individually held information about the lifestyle and environment of native peoples, a task considered by their teacher to be a cognitively complex one. All groups were instructed to speak in French, but two groups were closely monitored by the researchers who reminded the students to use French when they slipped into using English (their L1). Both the talk of the students as they collaborated on this task and their oral presentations were taperecorded. The groups of students who were not monitored for their use of French used more English than the monitored groups as they prepared for their oral presentation. Interestingly, and seemingly paradoxically, the researchers judged the presentations of the non-monitored groups to be better than those of the monitored groups. Behan and Turnbull found evidence that instances of task management, information sharing and vocabulary searches where English was used were carried forward into the final oral presentation in French. They concluded that ‘L1 use can both support and enhance L2 development, functioning simultaneously as an effective tool for dealing with cognitively demanding content’ (p. 41).

Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin

253

Cohen (1994) collected data from third to fifth grade students in a Spanish immersion programme over a 5-month period in seeking to determine the roles played by the native and target languages in processing numerical and word problems in mathematics. Students were observed to favour the use of English in their cognitive processing. Although students would read their mathematical problems in Spanish, they would shift to English as soon as they had some conceptual difficulty, suggesting again that students make use of their L1 to develop an understanding of the content of the task. It should be pointed out, however, that researchers prompted the students in English. Blanco-Iglesias, Broner and Tarone (1995) also observed the language use patterns of children in a Spanish immersion programme. They were interested in determining if the patterns of use changed from kindergarten through grade 5 as suggested by Tarone and Swain (1995). Tarone and Swain had argued that the immersion classroom developed into a diglossic situation over time, with the L2 functioning as a superordinate language variety used predominantly for academic topics and the L1 functioning as the vernacular. This was because the immersion students had little to no access to L2 ‘kid-speak’ in the school context; and this sort of ‘talking the right talk’ is central to the emerging image and identity of young adolescents. In the Blanco-Iglesias et al. study, vernacular forms (e.g. ‘Jerk!’; ‘This is cool.’) were used, particularly amongst the fifth grade students, ‘to mark the speakers as in-group members of a pre-adolescent speech community’ (p. 251). 2 Sociocultural theory and research Perhaps the dominant view of the role that an L1 plays in L2 learning is that of ‘language transfer’ (e.g. Gass and Selinker, 1983; Kellerman, 1995; Odlin, 1989). This perspective, however, provides no place for an understanding of language as a cognitive tool. But in the writings and research of Vygotsky (e.g. 1934/1987; 1978) and such neo-Vygotskians as Cole (1996), Lantolf and Appel (1994), and Wertsch (e.g. 1985; 1991; 1998), one finds a theoretical perspective in which language is understood as a mediating tool in all forms of higher-order mental processing (e.g. attending, planning, reasoning, etc.). Furthermore, language derives its

254

Task-based second language learning

mediating cognitive functions from social activities. Stetsenko and Arievitch (1997) state: ‘psychological processes emerge first in collective behaviour, in co-operation with other people, and only subsequently become internalized as the individual’s own ‘‘possessions” ’ (p. 161). In our own recent work (Swain, 1995; 1999; 2000; Swain and Lapkin, 1998; 2000), we have shown how collaborative dialogue, in the L1 or L2, mediates L2 learning. Collaborative dialogue is dialogue in which speakers are engaged in problem solving and knowledge building (Swain, 2000: 102). Our data demonstrate that through such dialogue, students engage in co-constructing their L2 and in building knowledge about it. From their collective behaviour, individual mental resources can develop. That is, the knowledge building that learners have collectively accomplished becomes a tool for the further individual use of their second language. Initially socially constructed, their joint resolution may serve them individually (see also Ellis, this issue). Recently, several researchers have examined the discourse of students working collaboratively on second language learning tasks within the framework of socio-cultural theory. The objective of these researchers is to discover the ways in which speaking is used as a cognitive tool. For example, Brooks and Donato (1994) analysed the discourse of eight pairs of third-year high school learners of Spanish as they participated in a two-way information gap activity. Although Brooks and Donato did not focus solely on the use of L1 by these learners, they observe that its use is ‘a normal psycholinguistic process that facilitates L2 production and allows the learners both to initiate and sustain verbal interaction with one another’ (p. 268). Anton and DiCamilla (1998) specifically focused on the use of L1 in the discourse of L2 learners while they engaged in L2 writing tasks. The university students in their study were five pairs of learners of Spanish at the beginner level, and they were all native speakers of English. Anton and DiCamilla’s data demonstrate the critical importance of the L1 as a psychological tool enabling learners to perform three important functions. First, using the L1, these learners provided each other with scaffolded help: By means of the L1 the students enlist and maintain each other’s interest in the task throughout its performance, develop strategies for making the task

Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin

255

manageable, maintain their focus on the goal of the task, foreground important elements of the task, discuss what needs to be done to solve specific problems, and explicate and build on each other’s partial solutions to specific problems throughout the task. (p. 321)

Second, the L1 was used to establish and maintain intersubjectivity (Rommetveit, 1985; Wertsch, 1985). This involved developing a shared perspective on the task, setting goals, and negotiating a positive co-operative tone to the activity. Third, the L1 was used to externalize one’s inner speech during cognitively difficult activities. This is speech directed to oneself in order to direct and organize one’s mental activity. Villamil and de Guerrero (1996), in their examination of the discourse of Spanish-speaking university students as they engaged in peer revision of their L2 (English) writing, found that these students used their L1 in ways similar to those found by Anton and DiCamilla. Villamil and de Guerrero identified five mediating strategies used by the collaborating students. They identified one strategy as ‘using the L1’, yet two other strategies also made extensive use of the L1: scaffolding and the use of private speech. In the words of Villamil and de Guerrero, ‘the L1 was an essential tool for making meaning of text, retrieving language from memory, exploring and expanding content, guiding their action through the task, and maintaining dialogue’ (p. 60). II The study 1 Context Our ongoing research has involved French immersion classes at the grade 8 level. These English-speaking students have been enrolled in immersion since kindergarten, with instruction in the early years carried out entirely in the medium of French. A period of English language arts was introduced in grade 3, and by grade 5 the instructional time was divided about equally between English and French. In general, these students have attained a high level of fluency, though their L2 speaking and writing skills fall short of native-speaker norms. The two classes we are concerned with in this paper came from the same school in a lower-middle to middle-class socio-economic

256

Task-based second language learning

neighbourhood in Toronto. They were comparable academically and obtained similar scores on a cloze pretest (Swain and Lapkin, 1998). Class D, with 30 students completed a dictogloss task, and Class J (35 students), a jigsaw task. The students worked collaboratively in pairs, and the pairs for whom we have complete data number 12 (Class D) and 10 (Class J). The same story was represented in the two tasks. The jigsaw task provided a visual stimulus, and the dictogloss, an oral text stimulus. Each task type had been modelled in the participating classes (the dictogloss in Class D and the jigsaw in Class J) prior to the data collection as part of the study. On the day of the data collection, both classes first viewed a video-taped lesson on French reflexive verbs, followed by a short segment featuring two students who modelled the relevant task. In the jigsaw task, each member of the pair held pictures (Appendix A) numbered 1, 3, 5 and 7 or 2, 4, 6 and 8. Generally speaking, they took turns to tell segments of the narrative in sequence until the entire oral story was finished; then they jointly produced a written version of it. The dictogloss class heard a native-speaker version of the jigsaw story on tape (Appendix B), taking notes as the text was read (twice) at normal speed. Each pair of students then worked together to write a story based on their respective notes. The dialogues of all pairs in both classes were tape-recorded and transcribed. Although we originally anticipated that these two tasks would generate attention to form (e.g. morphosyntax) and meaning (e.g. lexical searches) differentially, that hypothesis was not confirmed. We did, however, find notable task differences. Overall, the dictogloss task was more constraining: there was significantly less variability among student dyads in Class D compared to Class J in the number of language-related episodes produced,2 and in the range of vocabulary in the written narratives. Moreover, Class D produced proportionately more correct reflexive verbs in French than did their jigsaw counterparts. On a discourse level, Class J tended to number the sentences in their written stories to correspond to the numbered pictures they were working from to construct their narratives, and to include information about visual aspects of the pictures such as the colour of objects depicted (the pictures in Appendix A were

Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin

257

brightly coloured) (Swain and Lapkin, 2000). Both tasks proved to be pedagogically valid, leading equally to a focus on form and providing complementary opportunities for L2 development. We concluded that the writing component common to both tasks was an important factor in encouraging students to focus on form (Swain and Lapkin, 2000). The analyses presented below focus on the uses of the L1, English, during task completion, and differences observed within and across classes (tasks). 2 Methods of analysis For most analyses, our unit of analysis is the turn 3 (see examples below). We identified all turns in English or containing English. Based on relevant literature available at the time for review (see above) and our close inspection of the transcribed dialogues, we worked out the coding scheme (illustrated below) to categorize the uses of L1 by the students. We proceeded as follows: first, the authors and a research assistant worked through a transcript chosen at random, discussing each English turn and agreeing on its function. Then we each took a second transcript and individually coded it applying those categories. The categories are listed below. Through an iterative process, we achieved consensus over three sessions. The research assistant then coded the remaining data, which we spot-checked for accuracy. 3 Uses of English Students used their first language for three principal purposes: (1) moving the task along, (2) focusing attention, and (3) interpersonal interaction. The coding categories we established for instances of L1 use are as follows: 1. Moving the task along (a) sequencing (figuring out the order of events) (b) retrieving semantic information; understanding pieces of information; developing an understanding of the story (c) task management

258

Task-based second language learning

2. Focusing attention (a) vocabulary search (b) focus on form; explanation; framing; retrieving grammatical information 3. Interpersonal interaction (a) off task (includes L1 vernacular use) (b) disagreement The final category above needs to be understood in context. That is, as will become clear in the examples below, the L1 was used for a variety of constructive purposes in a consensus-building collaborative activity. The occasional disagreement is inevitable and natural, but was striking enough in our data to merit a separate category. In the following we provide examples from our data to illustrate these categories (D refers to the dictogloss class and J to the jigsaw class; the numbers 1 and 2 refer to any two students in the classes whose dialogues we are quoting). a Moving the task along: In Example (a) two Class D students decide where a specific item of information comes in the story. Here D1 is likely to be referring to the final statement in the dictogloss text (Encore une journée bien commencée) and D2 remembers that the passage opens with the sun rising on a beautiful day. They are both right, but they need to decide where to include this idea in their story. (a) D1: And something about a nice day, but I forget. D2: That was at the beginning. Students also need to develop an understanding of the story in order to get on with the task. This may involve retrieving semantic information as in Example (b); understanding what they see in a picture as in Example (c); or creating an interpretation of what is happening in a segment of the pictorial story as in Example (d). (b) D1: So that’s about . . . les pieds sur l’oreiller?4 (c) J1:

Is that a foot? Yeah, ok, it’s a foot.

(d) J2:

Oh, I think I know, she likes this guy maybe [referring to picture no. 8, Appendix A] Well, maybe. Wow! En tout cas.

J1:

Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin

259

English is also used for task management, a third function falling under ‘moving the task along’. Example (e) shows two students discussing the use of the tape recorder: (e) D1: Should we say it into this now? [referring to tape recorder] D2: What? D1: Just like, right into the thing. D2: No, I don’t think so. D1: Let’s do it. What’s the name of the story again? b Focusing attention: Students use English when they are searching for vocabulary items in French, as illustrated in Examples (f) and (g): (f) D1: Ensuite a what? D2: Un main mécanique. (g) J1: J2: J1: J2: J1:

Et elle est tickelée. How do you say ‘tickled’?5 Chatouillée. OK. Chatouillée, chatouillée. How do you say ‘foot’? Le pied. Ah, chatouillée les pieds.

Second, students often focus on form in their L1, providing explanations, retrieving grammatical information, and ‘framing’ an utterance or segment in French that is grammatically problematic. In Example (h), D1 asks for an explanation of the ‘e’ found at the end of the word suite. He may be thinking of the form of the verb (elle suit) which does not include a final ‘e’; but D2 is probably thinking of the French adverb meaning ‘immediately’ (tout de suite). In Example (i), D1 calls attention to the grammatical focus of the task, reflexive verbs in French, retrieving a lexical item almost identical to the verb in the dictogloss text (elle se rendort). In (k) the articles le and la are ‘framed’ by the English words ‘Is it’ and ‘or’, having the effect of transforming them into objects of scrutiny, and in Example (l), metalinguistic terminology focuses attention on the gender of the French noun in question. (h) D1: But why is there an ‘e’? D2: Because there’s an ‘e’ on suite.

260

Task-based second language learning

(i) D1: I have a perfect verb réfléchi. OK. Maintenant c’est six heures un et elle s’endormit. (k) D1: Is it la réveil or le réveil? (l) J1:

Dans une maison, dans une . . . is maison masculine or feminine?

c Interpersonal interaction: Off-task behaviour usually occurs in English. This may include the suggestion to do an unrelated activity as in Example (m), or the use of the L1 vernacular as in Example (n). (m) D1: Wanna do a crossword? (n) J1:

Wicked. Anyway. OK.

Finally in this category, disagreements are found in the L1: (o) D2: Réveil D1: Réveiller. It said that in the thing [the dictogloss]. Why else would I take it down? 4 Findings We conducted quantitative analyses intended to explore differences between and within the tasks in terms of the amount of English used and the variability in L1 use that might relate to specific characteristics of individual dyads. We present our findings below, addressing three main questions: 1. Do the tasks differ in the amount of L1 use they engender? 2. To what extent do differences in the amount of L1 use relate to differences in the quality of the students’ writing? 3. How variable is task performance across pairs? a Do the tasks differ in the L1 use they engender? As shown in Table 1, the amount of English used by each class is similar, with 29 per cent of the turns produced by Class J in English and 21 per cent of Class D’s turns in English. The high standard deviations (21 per cent for Class J, 18 per cent for Class D) demonstrate considerable variation amongst pairs of students. This is one reason why we find no significant difference in the

Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin Table 1

261

Number of turns in L1 as percentage of total turns*

Task

L1 turns/total turns

Jigsaw (10 pairs)

Dictogloss (12 pairs)

M

SD

M

SD

29%

21%

21%

18%

*A 2-tailed t-test yielded no significant difference between the means

proportion of turns in English across classes (tasks). Table 2 presents a breakdown of the functions for which English is used by the students in the two classes. Again, there are no significant differences between the groups. An inspection of the standard deviations shows large ranges in the amount of L1 use among student pairs; these ranges are generally more pronounced in the case of Class J. Students in both classes made use of their first language most frequently for task management purposes: 43 per cent of the L1 turns in Class J and 35 per cent in Class D fall into this category. Still within the same overall category of ‘moving the task along’, both classes use L1 to develop an understanding of the story, but to differing degrees. Class D, with 22 per cent of their English turns devoted to understanding the story, may have had to work harder Table 2

Number and percentage of L1 turns for three major functions* Jigsaw (n = 10 pairs)

Dictogloss (n = 12 pairs)

M turns in L1

SD

% turns

M turns in L1

SD

% turns

Moving task along sequencing understanding task management

0.2 1.5 6.6

0.8 4.7 17.4

1% 10% 43%

0.5 4.3 6.7

1.2 5.9 6.8

3% 22% 35%

Focusing attention vocabulary search focus on form

4.1 1.3

10.7 3.6

27% 8%

2.7 1.6

2.9 2.1

14% 8%

Interpersonal off-task disagreements

1.6 0.1

4.6 0.4

11% 1%

2.3 0.9

4.0 1.8

12% 5%

*There are no statistically significant differences between any of these means based on 2-tailed t-tests

262

Task-based second language learning

at getting meaning from the oral text than Class J (with 10 per cent of turns in L1 in this category) which has a visual, more contextually embedded stimulus. Searching for French vocabulary items occurred more frequently than focus on form – the two purposes for which L1 use is listed under ‘focusing attention’: Class J used 27 per cent of its English turns to search for vocabulary items, while Class D did so in 14 per cent of its L1 turns. This finding makes sense given the nature of the two tasks; no vocabulary is provided by the series of pictures in the jigsaw task, whereas the dictogloss text provides necessary lexical items. In the ‘focusing attention’ category, both groups used English to focus on form in 8 per cent of their L1 turns. Finally, in the interpersonal category, both classes engaged in offtask behaviour in 11 to 12 per cent of their English turns and there was some use of English for disagreements. b To what extent do differences in the amount of L1 use relate to differences in the quality of the students’ writing? The assessment of story quality was arrived at as follows. Two experienced immersion teachers who did not know the classes in question rated the written narratives on 5-point scales (see Appendix C) for content and language including vocabulary, morphology and syntax.6 (Appendix D presents the class average ratings for content and language for Classes D and J.) The ratings on the latter three scales were averaged to obtain the rating we use for ‘language’. Table 3 presents information on groupings within each class: those dyads whose language ratings were above and below the Table 3 Mean number and percentage of L1 turns by student dyads who are above or below median language and content ratings on their written stories Jigsaw (n = 10 pairs) Story rating

Dictogloss (n = 12 pairs)

Mean rating

Percentage L1 turns

Mean rating

Percentage L1 turns

Language above median below median

4.0 2.6

15% 41%

3.2 1.9

18% 25%

Content above median below median

4.0 2.0

15% 41%

3.0 1.6

20% 22%

Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin

263

class median, and those dyads whose content ratings were above and below the class median. Thus dyads obtaining language ratings (on their written stories) above the median in Class J (M = 4.0) use L1 in 15 per cent of their turns, while their below-median counterparts (M = 2.6) use L1 in 41 per cent of their turns. The corresponding figures for the same class (Class J) based on the content ratings of the above- and below-median groups (M = 4.0 and 2.0 respectively) are also 15 per cent and 41 per cent. This pattern is repeated, though much less dramatically, within the dictogloss class: based on their mean ratings for language (in the written story), the above-median dyads (M = 3.2) use L1 in 18 per cent of their turns, and the below-median dyads (M = 1.9) in 25 per cent of their turns. With respect to content ratings for Class D, the above-median pairs (M = 3.0) use L1 in 20 per cent of their turns, and the below-median pairs (M = 1.6) do so in 22 per cent of their turns. Looking across tasks, we can see from Table 3 that the stronger student dyads (those obtaining higher language and content ratings for their written narratives) use L1 for 15 to 20 per cent of their turns. Thus the proportion of turns in L1 used by the dyads obtaining above-median ratings for language in Class J is 15 per cent, and the corresponding percentage for Class D above-median dyads is 18 per cent. Based on the content rating, the proportion of turns in English used by above-median dyads in Class J is 15 per cent; and the corresponding figure for the above-median dyads in Class D is 20 per cent. An important task difference appears for weaker student dyads, however. The below-median student pairs (based on ratings for language) in Class J use their L1 in 41 per cent of their turns. Coincidentally, based on the content rating, these below-median dyads also use English in 41 per cent of their turns. This pattern contrasts sharply with the pattern for the below-median dictogloss students. Based on their language rating, the below-median dyads in Class D use the L1 in 25 per cent of their turns; and based on the content rating, the weaker dyads in Class D use English in 22 per cent of their turns. We conducted the same analysis, not reported in tabular form here, looking only at the amount of English use for the three topand bottom-rated dyads in each class. The same pattern seen in

264

Task-based second language learning

Table 3 appeared, though the differences were more pronounced. Another way of looking at the above phenomenon is to inspect the correlations presented in Table 4. Significant negative correlations are obtained between the percentage of L1 turns and the language and content ratings of the jigsaw task (Class J); that is, the lower the ratings on these two indicators of written story quality, the greater the amount of L1 use. This pattern does not hold for the dictogloss task, where no significant correlations are found. c How variable is task performance across pairs? Since the focus of this paper is on L1 use, we were interested in exploring whether dyads using a similar percentage of L1 turns were also similar on other measures. We had noted in our data, for example, some pairs of students who obtained high story ratings and used a lot of L1 in their oral dialogues, and others who obtained equally high story ratings, using little or no English as they completed the task. For the analysis presented in Table 5, then, we chose two dyads within the jigsaw class who used a similar proportion of L1 turns (Pair J2, 23 per cent and Pair J13, 26 per cent). Pair J13 produced only 41 turns in all, of which 11 were in (or contained) English, while Pair J2 produced 164 turns of which 37 were in the L1 or contained the L1. The teachers of Classes D and J had provided us with a list of ratings on a 7-point scale (7 = highest rating) of the French proficiency of their students. The students in Pair J2 (Table 5) were rated a ‘5’ (the boy in the dyad) and ‘7’ (the girl); the boy in Pair J13 was rated a ‘4’ and the girl a ‘3’. As shown in Table 5, the story written by Pair J2 obtained the highest possible content rating (‘5’) and a similar language rating (‘4.9’), while J13’s story got ‘2’ for content and ‘2.1’ for language. We also did a count of idea or information units in the written narratives, and here again, the Table 4 stories

Correlations between amount of L1 use and quality of the written

Task

Language rating

Content rating

Jigsaw – percentage of L1 turns Dictogloss – percentage of L1 turns

–.68* –.14

–.64* –.16

*p < .05

Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin

265

Table 5 Contrast of high and low performing pairs who use approximately same % of L1 in jigsaw task J2 No. of L1 turns

J13 % L1 turns

No. of L1 turns

% L1 turns

Moving task along sequencing understanding task management

0 8 13

0% 22% 35%

2 0 2

18% 0% 18%

Focusing attention vocabulary search focus on form

8 5

22% 14%

5 0

45% 0%

Interpersonal off-task disagreements

0 3

0% 8%

2 0

18% 0%

No. of L1 turns

37

101%

11

99%

Total no. of turns

164

41

Percentage of all turns no. of idea units content rating language rating

23% 15 5 4.9

26% 11 2 2.1

story written by J2 contained more relevant information (15 such units) than the narrative written by J13 (11 units). In terms of the functions of the L1, the stronger dyad, J2, used the L1 most frequently for task management (13 of 37 or 35 per cent of the English turns) and to develop an understanding of the story (8 or 22 per cent of the L1 turns) in the interest of moving the task along. Pair J13 devoted the greatest proportion of its L1 turns (5 of 11, or 45 per cent) to vocabulary searches, whereas Pair J2 did so for 22 per cent of its L1 turns. It is noteworthy that the weaker pair did not make use of the L1 to focus on form, while J2 did so in 14 per cent of its English turns (5 turns). 5 Discussion The application of statistical analyses to our data did not, on the whole, reveal statistically significant differences, the reasons being

266

Task-based second language learning

twofold: (1) our small sample size and (2) the high degree of variability observed in the data. In spite of the small sample size, the results nevertheless suggest interesting trends, and we comment further on them below. As for the high degree of variability observed, we consider this an important finding. It is indicative of the fact that a task is but a ‘blueprint’, and that it can be implemented in a wide variety of ways (cf. Coughlan and Duff, 1994). In the present study, the different ways in which the two tasks were carried out by different pairs of students, although partially dependent on the language proficiencies of the two students in each pair, were also dependent on a number of other characteristics which at this point we can only guess at: the students’ perception of the task, of learning French (and their motivation to continue to do so), of the researchers, of the teacher, of the recording equipment; the history of the dynamics between the students who chose to work together and the compatibility of their perceptions and beliefs; the learners’ preferences for visual or auditory stimuli; etc. What is quite clear from our data is that although, in general, the pairs of students achieving higher ratings for content and language on their written narratives (henceforth the high-achieving pairs) made less use of the L1, other variables intervened in affecting the amount of L1 use and its effect on performance. One intervening variable was the task itself: the variation in students’ performance was constrained by the dictogloss task relative to the jigsaw task. As stated above (see page 258), we had also found that variation in performance was constrained by the dictogloss task in our previous analysis of the same discourse data (Swain and Lapkin, 2000) with respect to number of language-related episodes produced during the collaborative dialogues, and range of vocabulary use in the written stories. And now, based on the current data analyses, we see the ‘constraining effect’ of the dictogloss replicated in aspects of performance associated with the students’ use of English: in general, there is less variation in how much English is used for each of the functions the L1 serves for the students doing the dictogloss task relative to those students doing the jigsaw task. This implies that when used within a pedagogical context, different task types may generally provide

Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin

267

greater or lesser needs for different uses of the L1 (though in the current study there were no statistically significant between-task differences in the percentages of L1 use in the various categories we established). Students who did the dictogloss task needed to use their L1 more to understand the story than the jigsaw students who had a series of pictures to interpret. In retrospect, this is not at all surprising. The dictogloss text provided them with a text in their L2 and the students had to understand it before they could get on with the task, and to do so, they made use of the L1. The jigsaw students, however, could make up the story as they went along but they often needed to search for the appropriate vocabulary. Unlike the dictogloss students, the jigsaw students were not provided with essential vocabulary. It was in these two categories, understanding and vocabulary search, where the greatest differences were found between the two groups. Another interesting difference found between the use made of the L1 by the pairs of students carrying out the dictogloss and jigsaw tasks was that associated with their performance on their written narrative. For both tasks there was less use made of the L1 in the dialogue that led to the written stories judged to be of higher quality. Moreover, the difference in the amount of English used by those whose stories were judged more positively compared to those whose stories where judged less positively was smaller for those who did the dictogloss task than for those who did the jigsaw task. The dictogloss task seemed to ‘even the playing field’, that is, the use of English seems less closely related to differences in the quality of the written story. These results, along with the correlational analyses, suggest an interaction between achievement (as measured by story quality – language and content ratings) and task with respect to the use of the L1. Among lower-achieving students, there is a greater need to use the L1. This, however, interacts with the nature of the task to be undertaken such that some tasks (e.g. jigsaw) require less use of the L1 among higher-achieving students and more use of the L1 among lower-achieving students compared to other tasks (e.g. dictogloss). Here, the input characteristics – visual versus textual – may be one of the crucial variables.

268

Task-based second language learning

III Conclusion One of the reasons we embarked on the analyses of the L1 use of these students is because we were taken aback when we first heard the tapes: there was much more use of the L1 than we had anticipated. We had heard repeatedly from French immersion teachers that one of the chief reasons they were unwilling to engage their students in group work was that their students would use a lot of English, and that such use was counterproductive to one of the stated aims of French immersion programmes: progress in the learning of French. Needless to say, our initial reaction on hearing the tapes was to agree with the teachers. However, we believe that our analyses of these data demonstrate, rather strikingly, that both we and the teachers were misinformed. While in about one quarter of the turns on average the students made use of some English, only approximately 12 per cent of the L1 turns were off-task. Some of the latter was the students’ use of ‘kidspeak’ vernacular (Blanco-Iglesias et al., 1995): ‘whatever’, ‘who cares’, ‘wicked’, ‘stupid’, etc. The rest of their use of English served important cognitive and social functions. This reasoning implies that the L1 will be used in immersion classrooms, and that it can be put to good use. For this reason, the use of the L1 should not be prohibited in immersion classrooms, but neither should it be actively encouraged as it may substitute for, rather than support, second language learning. As we have seen both in the studies included in the literature review and in our own data, students’ use of the L1 is not for naught. A socio-cultural theory of mind suggests that the L1 serves as a tool that helps students as follows: to understand and make sense of the requirements and content of the task; to focus attention on language form, vocabulary use, and overall organization; and to establish the tone and nature of their collaboration. Without their L1 use, the task presented to them may not have been accomplished as effectively, or perhaps it might not have been accomplished at all. Herein lies the explanation for the seeming paradox with which we began this article: judicious use of the L1 can indeed support L2 learning and use. To insist that no use be made of the L1 in carrying out tasks that are both linguistically and cognitively complex is to deny the use of an

Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin

269

important cognitive tool. This is why bilingual education programmes that allow for the development and maintenance of the L1 while the L2 is being learned are successful in achieving their goals: students learn the L2 and acquire the cognitively challenging academic content presented to them. Acknowledgements We would like to thank several individuals for their valuable feedback on an earlier draft of this paper: Alister Cumming, Jim Cummins, Rick Donato, Birgit Harley, Jim Lantolf and Miles Turnbull. We would also like to thank Anne Banitowski for her help in coding the L1 data. Notes 1

2

3

4

5

6

A main premise of a socio-cultural theory of mind is that cognitive functions such as reasoning and attention are mediated mental activities, the sources of which are activities external to the learner but in which he or she participates. Through a process of internalization (Gal’perin, 1967), external activities are transformed into mental ones. This process is mediated by semiotic tools. Language (a cultural artifact) is one of the most important semiotic tools. This portrayal of language as a cognitive tool is central to the analysis and interpretation of the data presented in this paper. Language-related episodes are 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 and Lapkin, 1995). Swain and Lapkin (1998) demonstrate that language-related episodes (LREs) provide occasions for second language learning. In calculating percentages, brief exchanges (consisting of two or more turns, but coded as one function) were counted in the numerator as one turn. The French examples that appear in this article have not been corrected for grammatical, spelling or other errors. They appear here as we transcribed them from the audiotape. This example could also have been coded as ‘translation’. Because there are numerous examples involving translation in most of the categories we established, we decided not to separate cases of translation, but to include them in the functional categories to which each belongs. When we developed these scales, we consulted several existing schemes (e.g. Jacobs et al., 1981). The two immersion teacher-raters we were working with were comfortable with the descriptors marking only the end points of the 5point scales. One rater tended to rate consistently one point higher than the other, so we averaged their ratings for each scale (Swain and Lapkin, 2000).

270

Task-based second language learning

IV References Anton, M. and DiCamilla, F. 1998: Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review 54: 314–42. Behan, L. and Turnbull, M., with Spek, J. 1997: The proficiency gap in late immersion (extended French): language use in collaborative tasks. Le journal de l’immersion 20: 41–42. Blanco-Iglesias, S., Broner, J. and Tarone, E. 1995: Observations of language use in Spanish immersion classroom interactions. In Eubank, L., Selinker, L. and Sharwood Smith, M., editors, The current state of interlanguage: studies in honor of William Rutherford. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 239–51. Brooks, F.B. and Donato, R. 1994: Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania 77: 262–74. Carroll, J.B. 1975: The teaching of French as a foreign language in eight countries. New York: John Wiley. Cohen, A. 1994: The language used to perform cognitive operations during full-immersion maths tasks. Language Testing 11: 171–95. Cole, M. 1996: Cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Coughlan, P. and Duff, P.A. 1994: Same task, different activities: analysis of a SLA task from an activity theory perspective. In Lantolf, J.P. and Appel, G., editors. Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 173–93. Cummins, J. 1981: The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education, editor, Schooling and language minority students: a theoretical framework. Los Angeles: National Dissemination and Assessment Center, 3–49. –––– 1993: Bilingualism and second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13: 51–70. Gass, S. and Selinker, L. 1983: Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gal’perin, P. Ya. 1967: On the notion of internalization. Soviet Psychology 5: 28–33. Jacobs, H.L., Zinkgraf, S.A., Wormuth, D.R., Hartfiel, V.F. and Hughey, J.B. 1981: Testing ESL composition: a practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Kellerman, E. 1995: Crosslinguistic influence: transfer to nowhere? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 15: 125–50. Lantolf, J.P. 2000: Introducing sociocultural theory. In Lantolf, J.P., editor, Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford

Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin

271

University Press, 1–28. Lantolf, J.P. and Appel, G. 1994: Theoretical framework: an introduction to Vygotskian perspectives on second language research. In Lantolf, J.P. and Appel, G., editors, Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1–32. Odlin, T. 1989: Language transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rommetveit, R. 1985: Language acquisition as increasing linguistic structuring of experience and symbolic behavior control. In Wertsch, J.V., editor, Culture, communication, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 183–204. Stetsenko, A. and Arievitch, I. 1997: Constructing and deconstructing the self: comparing post-Vygotskian and discourse-based versions of social constructivism. Mind, Culture, and Activity 4: 159–72. Swain, M. 1995: Three functions of output in second language learning. In Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B., editors, Principle and practice in applied linguistics: studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125–44. –––– 1999: Language production in SLA: from social to cognitive and back again. Plenary address at SLRF, University of Minnesota. –––– 2000: The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J.P., editor, Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97–114. Swain, M. and Johnson, R.K. 1997: Immersion education: a category within bilingual education. In Johnson, R.K. and Swain, M., editors, Immersion education: international perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–16. Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. 1995: Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: a step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics 16: 371–91. –––– 1998: Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal 82: 320–37. –––– 2000: Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: exploring task effects. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M., editors, Researching pedagogic tasks: second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow, Essex: Longman. Tarone, E. and Swain, M. 1995: A sociolinguistic perspective on second language use in immersion classrooms. Modern Language Journal 79: 24–46. Villamil, O. and de Guerrero, M. 1996: Peer revision in the L2 classroom: social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing 5: 51–75.

272

Task-based second language learning

Vygotsky, L.S. 1978: Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. –––– 1934/1987: Thinking and speech. New York: Plenum. Wertsch, J.V. 1985: Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. –––– 1991: Voices of the mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. –––– 1998: Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Appendix A

Pictures used in jigsaw task

Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin Appendix B

273

Text of dictogloss and its translation

Le réveil-matin de Martine Il est six heures du matin et le soleil se lève. Martine dort tranquillement dans son lit. Elle fait de beaux rêves, la tête au pied du lit et les pieds sur l’oreiller. Quand le réveil sonne, Martine ne veut pas se lever. Elle sort son pied et avec le gros orteil, elle ferme le réveil. Elle se rendort tout de suite. Mais elle a le réveil qu’il faut pour ne pas être en retard. À six heures et deux minutes, une main mécanique tenant une petite plume sort du réveil et lui chatouille le pied. C’est efficace! Finalement Martine se lève. Elle se brosse les dents, se peigne les cheveux et s’habille pour prendre le chemin de l’école. Encore une journée bien commencée! Martine’s alarm clock It’s six a.m. and the sun is rising. Martine is sound asleep in her bed. She’s having sweet dreams, her head at the foot of the bed and her feet on the pillow. When the alarm clock rings, Martine doesn’t want to get up. She sticks her foot out, and with her big toe, she shuts off the alarm. She falls asleep again immediately. But she has the kind of alarm clock you need to prevent being late. At 6:02, a mechanical hand holding a small feather comes out of the alarm clock. It tickles her foot. To good effect! Finally Martine gets up. She brushes her teeth, combs her hair and gets dressed to go to school. Another great start to the day!

Appendix C narratives

Rating scale descriptors used for scoring written

Written narratives: descriptors used for the end points of four scales Content 1 It’s difficult to know what the paragraph is about; no story is told 5 A ‘complete’ story is told; narrative is interesting and holds one’s attention

274

Task-based second language learning

Vocabulary 1 Vocabulary generally impoverished; some reliance on English; overuse of some ‘high coverage’ terms 5 Sophisticated vocabulary; precision in word choice; use of appropriate register Morphology 1 Many errors in gender; agreement errors (noun-adj.; person agreement in the verb; spelling of verb inflections, etc.) 5 High degree of accuracy in use of person, number and gender agreement Syntax 1 Sounds more like English than French; many errors involving tense, articles, clitics, faulty word order, etc. 5 Quite idiomatic use of French; generally gets the structure of verbs and their complements correct; presence of one or two sophisticated syntactic structures

Appendix D Task

Average story ratings and idea units by task* Jigsaw (10 pairs)

Dictogloss (12 pairs)

M

M

SD

SD

Language rating (max. = 5)

3.08

1.16

2.73

1.01

Content rating (max. = 5)

3.0

1.25

2.41

0.9

12.7

3.09

12.25

3.47

Idea units (max. = 21)

*Two-tailed t-tests yielded no significant differences between groups on any measure

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.