1 / 36

Task-based interaction with low-proficiency EFL learners. The importance of the L1

Task-based interaction with low-proficiency EFL learners. The importance of the L1. Ana Alegría de la Colina (Universidad de Cantabria) ana.alegria@unican.es María del Pilar García Mayo (Universidad del País Vasco) mariapilar.garciamayo@ehu.es. 1. Introduction.

apollo
Download Presentation

Task-based interaction with low-proficiency EFL learners. The importance of the L1

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Task-based interaction with low-proficiency EFL learners.The importance of the L1 Ana Alegría de la Colina (Universidad de Cantabria) ana.alegria@unican.es María del Pilar García Mayo (Universidad del País Vasco) mariapilar.garciamayo@ehu.es

  2. 1. Introduction • The role of the L1 in the learning of an L2: widely studied as a source of cross-linguistic influence (Gass & Selinker, 1992). • This view provides no room for an understanding of language as a cognitive tool (Vygostksy, 1978): language as a mediating tool in all forms of higher-order mental processing. Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  3. Sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) • Speaking is a cognitive tool that can be used by learners to regulate themselves, others and objects. • By speaking • about a problem or the procedures for completing a task, individuals can • gain control of the situation, plan, • organize and coordinate their actions and the actions of others. • In cognitively demanding activities, individuals resort to externalizing their reasoning processes in the form ofprivate speech (PS) to regain self-regulation • The internalization of the socially acquired knowledge has a regulatory function. Once knowledge • has been internalized, • the activity learnt in social interaction can be performed • independently. Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  4. 1. Introduction • In collaborative problem-solving activities, PS becomes: ► an essential instrument that allows the speaker and hearer to solve difficulties and build new knowledge ► a mediating strategy to guide behavior and release affectivity Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  5. 1. Introduction • PS appears spontaneously and mostly in the L1, especially if the speaker does not have a higher level of proficiency in the L2. • The study of PS and the use of the L1 are, therefore, closely interconnected. Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  6. 1. Introduction • Recent findings in both foreign language classrooms (Alley, 2005; Antón & DiCamilla, 1999; Brooks & Donato, 1994; Centeno Cortés & Jiménez, 2004) and immersion classrooms (Muñoz, 2005; Swain & Lapkin, 2000): the L1 may be a useful tool for the learning of the L2. Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  7. 1. Introduction • Why a useful tool? The L1 provides: • cognitive support to analyze language (Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003), • mutual scaffolding (Antón & DiCamilla, 1999), • possibilities of externalizing inner speech Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  8. 1. Introduction • In sum, within the sociocultural framework the L1 is viewed as an important tool that provides a cognitive and social space in which learners can help one another during task performance. • It is within this backdrop that the present study was set. Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  9. 2. The study • Aim: to explore the functions of the L1 in the oral interaction of adult low-proficiency Spanish EFL learners in three collaborative tasks: • Jigsaw • Dictogloss • Text reconstruction Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  10. 2. The study • Research questions: • Is there any difference in the amount of L1 use across the three task types? • Does each of the tasks trigger different uses of the L1? Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  11. Tasks Text reconstruction (written stimulus) Jigsaw (visual stimulus) Dictogloss (Aural stimulus) Each student has part of the information (pictures) which must be exchanged to complete the task Students listen to a text and jot down words to aid recall Pair members pool their resources to reconstruct text Text deprived of function words which must be inserted • Students • collaboratively produce a text based on a given stimulus • attempt to create a text as accurate as possible • are encouraged to make as many revisions as they want Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  12. 2. The study: Participants • 12 pairs of undergraduate (1st year) students (12M/12F; mean age: 22). Elementary proficiency level (level 1 Waystage). • Degree program in Maritime Studies at the University of Cantabria (Spain). • Content-based ESP course with a reactive and incidental FonF component. Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  13. 2. The study: Procedure • 3 groups of 4 pairs each • Each group performed a different task (all tasks designed with a common content: containerization) • Dialogues were recorded. The talk was transcribed, codified and the quantity of the L1 was calculated as a % of the total use. Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  14. 2. The study: Analysis The talk was segmented into episodes according to their function Episode: a segment of conversation in which learners discussed about a particular aspect. The data revealed that learners used their L1 for two main purposes: metacognition & metatalk Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009 Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009 14

  15. 2. The study: Analysis Metacognition (talk about task) Metatalk (talk about talk) • Clarifying or setting task procedures • Clarifying and discussing content • Task management • (i) Guiding, planning and monitorizing work • (ii) Developing strategies • (iii) Managing affectivity and releasing anxiety • Lexical episodes • Grammatical episodes Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009 Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009 15

  16. 2. The study: Analysis • Metacognition (talk about task) • Clarifying or setting task procedures • ¿Sólo hay que añadir uno o hay que corregir? Do we only have to add one or do we have to make corrections? Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  17. 2. The study: Analysis • Clarifying and discussing content: (2) ¿Y no será que el mejor tiempo significa fácil estiba? And could it be that the least time means easy stowage? Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  18. 2. The study: Analysis • Task management (i) Guiding, planning and monitorizing work (3)¿Lo escribes tú o lo escribo yo? Do I write it or do you write it? (ii) Developing strategies (4)Luego lo leemos y lo pasamos a limpio Later we’ll read it and write it on a clean sheet (iii) Managing affectivity and releasing anxiety (5)Me cohíbe que me estén grabando I feel uneasy when they are recording me Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  19. 2. The study: Analysis Metatalk (talk about talk) Lexical episodes: ¿Cómo se dice ‘ahorro’? (How do you say ‘ahorro’?) Grammatical episodes: ‘Mean’ ¿llevará –s o no? (Will ‘mean’ carry –s or not?) Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009 Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009 19

  20. 2. The study: Results RQ1: Amount of L1 use across tasks Difference closely related to task requirements Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009 Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009 20

  21. 2. The study: Results Participants performing the jigsaw were required to report the content of their respective pictures to each other in the L2. Occassionally they used the L1 for self-correction, expressing helplessness, marking an aside and ending a sentence they were not able to utter in the L2. A great number of interjections in the L1 as cognitive support of their reasoning in form of PS. Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009 Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009 21

  22. L1mostly • used for: METACOGNITION(nº episod): Task manag and clarif meaning METATALK(episodes with greatest nº of words ) *(D/TR) Meaning *(J/D)Seq inform *(TR/D)Task management *(J) Releas anx Difference between the % of discourse these episodes amounted to and the distribution of those episodes across tasks (*sig dif) More form episodes *(J/TR) Vocab Focus on diff aspects The use of the L1 does not involve off-task behavior

  23. Metatalk Each task type draws the learners’ attention to different language features derived from different task demands Jigsaw: (Absence of ling input) Spelling: search for vocabulary Connectors: to organize content Wide variety of language features: process morphosynctatically to encode meaning Text reconstruction: (Written input) Determiners Passive voice Students forced to complete all missing features Focus directly influenced by the text Dictogloss: (Aural input) Connectors: crucial to organize discourse Concern for spelling Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  24. RQ2: Uses of the L1 across tasks Metacognition:The category with the greatest number of episodes (fruitful collaboration) Importance of the PS:very few words, such as interjections, sighs, etc. with a significant semantic load lacking the same cognitive and affective value in the L2 Metatalk:Episodes with a greatest number of words Students devoted agreat part of their interaction to discussing form The distribution of episodes across tasksshows differences closely connected with tasks demands derived from the type of stimulus provided, thus supporting the claim thattask type determines differentiated attention Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009 Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009 24

  25. Strategies • The different use and frequency of the strategies developed by students across tasks further sugggests that the different uses of the L1 were driven by task demands and confirms the importance of the L1 as a cognitive tool. Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  26. Strategies They used the L1 as a strategy to understand the story and focus attention while they were externalizing PSto capture meaning, focus attention and generate ideas J (39%) D (20.7%) TR (57.4%) to search for synonyms in the L1 and find a key word linked to the appropriate L2 word J (21.4%) D (20.7%) TR (12.7%) They used intermittentcodeswitching as they were producing in L2 to check whether the L2 produced communicated the idea they intended to convey and was grammatically accurate J (19%) D (27.6%) TR (27.6%) Regulation through L1 Retrievalof L2 termsfrommemory Production check Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009 Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009 26

  27. 3. Conclusion (A) The L1 is an important tool for low proficiency EFL learners. They make use of it for: (i) Task management (clarifying task procedures, organizing and planning work, understanding the content of the prompt) Cognitive support to focus attention and understand meaning (ii) Discuss grammar and vocabulary: the L1 allows learners to reflect on the L2 and link form and meaning Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  28. 3. Conclusion Through the L1 learners can think and self-regulate more quickly and then transfer their cognitive, metacognitive and social skills to the L2. With the help of the L1 they can perform higher level activities, hence enhancing motivation (crucial for adult learners) Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  29. 3. Conclusion These activities • allow participants to - notice their interlanguage gaps - benefit from feedback and further noticing so turning their attention to form in a natural and more effective way • allow teachers to - discover students’ needs and potential misconceptions - adjust their feedback in a contingent way - plan subsequent activities Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  30. 3. Conclusion (B) There is task-related variation in L1-use. Teachers should be aware of this fact and act accordingly when planning task-based material. Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  31. 3. Conclusion • L1 use has potentially positive consequences: it serves social and cognitive functions, including scaffolded assistance and the creation of opportunities for language acquisition through collaborative dialogue (cf. Swain & Lapkin, 2000) BUT Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  32. 3. Conclusions • Potential negative consequences if too much reliance on the L1, the psycholinguistic rationale for task-based interaction (i.e., stretching learner interlanguage through engaging in communicative tasks) may be undermined (Skehan, 1998). Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  33. 3. Conclusion • Functional use of the L1 (Macaro, 2005): teachers and learners should use the L2 but switch to the L1 to ensure not only communication but also that more learning has taken place than if the L1 had not been used. Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  34. 3. Conclusion • It would be desirable for students to be exposed to the L2 when it is used as a cognitive tool so that they could assign sufficient semantic meaning to the expressions used for thinking and self-regulation in the L2, which in turn could facilitate their interaction with native speakers (Muñoz 2005). Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  35. References • Alley, D C. (2005) A study of Spanish II high school students’ discourse during group work. Foreign Language Annals 38 (2): 250-258. • Anton, M, and F. DiCamilla (1999) Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal 83 (2):233-247. • Brooks, F. B., and R. Donato (1994) Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania 77: 262-274. • Centeno-Cortés, B, and A. F. Jiménez Jiménez (2004) Problem-solving tasks in a foreign language: the importance of the L1 in private verbal thinking. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14 (1): 7-35. • Gass, S, and L. Selinker (eds.), (1992) Language Transfer in Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. • Macaro, E. (2005) Codeswitching in the L2 classroom: A communication and learning strategy. In Non-native Language Teachers. Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to the Profession, Enric Llurda (ed.) 63-84. New York: Springer. • Muñoz, C. A. (2005) Usos de lengua materna (L1) y lengua meta (L2) en un contexto de inmersión real. Unpublished Master´s thesis. Indiana University. • Skehan, P. (1998) Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268-286. • Storch, N., and G. Wigglesworth (2003) Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? TESOL Quarterly 37 (4): 760-770. • Swain, M, and S. Lapkin (2000) Task-based second language learning: the uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3): 251-274. • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

  36. THANKS VERY MUCH!! ¡¡MUCHAS GRACIAS!! Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009

More Related