Learning To Talk And Talking To Learn: How Spontaneous Teacher-learner .

1y ago
1 Views
1 Downloads
2.84 MB
256 Pages
Last View : 22d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Troy Oden
Transcription

Learning to talk and talking to learn: how spontaneous teacher-learnerinteraction in the secondary foreign languages classroom provides greateropportunities for L2 learning.Rachel HawkesHomerton CollegeA dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at theUniversity of CambridgeJanuary 2012

DeclarationThis dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome ofwork done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text.I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, isbeing concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at theUniversity of Cambridge or any other University of similar institution except as declared inthe Preface and specified in the text.Finally, I confirm that this dissertation does not exceed the prescribed word limit.Date:5 January 2012Signature:Name:2RACHEL HAWKES

SummaryThis study sets out to investigate classroom interaction within the secondary foreignlanguages classroom, analysing spontaneous teacher-learner L2 interaction in three classes ofbeginner learners of German. The lack of spontaneous L2 interaction in secondary foreignlanguage classrooms in England has been of central concern for as long as CommunicativeLanguage Teaching has been the dominant pedagogical approach.Professional andpedagogical impetus for an enquiry into L2 talk in the English school context is provided byOFSTED school inspection report findings that spontaneous L2 interaction is all but absent,and the knowledge that the classroom typically represents the main, if not only, source oflanguage experience for learners in England.Whilst the precise nature of the relationship between interaction and L2 learning remainsundetermined, it is nevertheless broadly accepted within the field of Second LanguageAcquisition that greater opportunities for interaction benefit L2 learners.Within asociocultural approach to learning, talk is especially privileged as the locus of learning itself,and yet in spite of the theoretical imperative of talk for learning, the vast majority of L2studies to date have focused on conceptual gains in language learning through dialogue aboutthe L2, rather than meaning-focused interaction in the L2. Furthermore, the context forlearning has most often been one-to-one tutorial or peer-peer interactions rather than wholeclass teaching.This study is an interpretive, comparative case study of three classes (two project classesand a control class) of secondary school learners of German in their second year of study.The flexible Action Research design combines instrumental case study with a quasiexperimental element, involving an intervention programme of teacher strategies designed topromote higher levels of spontaneous L2 talk in whole class teacher-fronted interaction. Itsoverall purpose is to contribute to the development of a theory of L2 use within classroombased foreign language teaching and learning, with respect to the role of spontaneous teacherlearner interaction and in particular to the role of the teacher‟s dialogic support in L2 learning.The intervention strategies were based on a synthesis of empirical classroom interactionresearch studies and sociocultural theoretical perspectives. The general principles, however,relied on individual teacher interpretation and elaboration in the classroom and theinteractions generated as a result were analysed.An initial descriptive analysis identified key patterns of interaction, thereafter a finegrained microgenetic analysis of episodes of spontaneous talk, supported by secondary datafrom teacher and learner interviews, revealed L2 development in linguistic and3

communicative competence, and pinpointed aspects of teacher talk that scaffold learnercontributions.The study‟s findings provide evidence that participation in spontaneous talk initiateslearners into a broader range of interactional practices that they enjoy within IRE-dominatedclassroom discourse. In addition, conversational interaction affords learners opportunities toacquire new lexis and to gain greater control over their existing linguistic resources. Strategicteacher-talk moves that trigger increased and improved learner L2 talk are identified. Theyextend and refine the construct of „scaffolding‟, showing how the teacher‟s dialogic support isenacted in L2 classroom interaction. The dyadic teacher-learner interactions played outwithin the whole class setting represent, furthermore, a rich cultural artefact for other learnersin the class, who interact with it, and other forms of mediation, creating their own ZPDs andbenefitting vicariously from the learning situation.In its analysis of spontaneous teacher-learner L2 talk in the secondary foreign languagesclassroom, the present study captures „in flight‟ instances of learning to talk and talking tolearn. The contribution to L2 development of such talk is sufficiently supported by thestudy‟s empirical findings as to suggest that they might justifiably be projected onto similarcontexts in instructional settings, with the expectation of similarly positive outcomes.4

DedicationI dedicate this thesis to my husband Mark and children Emily and Tom, whose unfailing faithin me gave me the perseverance to complete it.5

AcknowledgementsI would like to thank my supervisor, Dr Michael Evans, without whose advice and guidance,wisdom and experience, patience and encouragement, the work presented in this dissertationwould not have been possible.I am also deeply grateful to the three teachers who collaborated with me in this actionresearch study. Their energy and enthusiasm before, during and since the project helped tosustain my commitment to this work. I am further indebted to them for sharing the thoughtfulinsights into language teaching that they developed along the way and for continuing todevelop their own and others‟ classroom practice in spontaneous talk. I want also to thankSilke Pfannkuch, colleague and friend, who gave freely of her time to aid me in thetranscription process.I owe a particular debt of gratitude to the students I teach for providing me with the initialsource of interest in this research project and, in addition, to the three classes of learners thatbecame the focus of it. Without their learning processes there would have been no reason formine.The Faculty of Education has offered a great deal of support and I would like to extend mythanks in particular to the library team and the PhD administrator.And finally, I would like to thank my parents, my husband and my children, who have alwaysgiven me unconditional love and support in everything I do.The teacher‟s paradox:“We seek in the classroom to teach people how to talk when they are not being taught.”Edmondson (1985:162)6

Table of ementsTable of contentsList of tables and figuresList of abbreviationsList of appendices23567111313Chapter 1:Introduction14Chapter 2:Literature review iocultural theoryKey concepts within SCT for interaction and learningMediation and microgenesisThe Zone of Proximal DevelopmentScaffoldingSLA studies within the sociocultural paradigmL2 development through scaffolding as corrective feedbackL2 development through scaffolding in peer-peer collaborationL2 development through meaning-focused interactionConclusion25252627283131364143Chapter 33.4Literature review (2)Classroom interaction and e evaluation/feedback third turnQuestioningTeacher – learner discourse rolesSCT-based studies of teacher-learner interaction in whole classteachingSpontaneous/unplanned talk within mainstream SLASpontaneous talk within SCTSpontaneous talk in the languages classroom: learner initiationsConversationConversation or dialogue?ConclusionChapter 4:4.14.24.34.44.54.6Talk in the English secondary classroom contextIntroductionCommunicative language teachingEducation policy and the use of the target languageInspection findings: teacher and learner L2 useBarriers to spontaneous learner L2 talkConclusionPart 17454546484950515253535557595961636872

Part 2Research designChapter troductionMethodological paradigmResearch questionsResearch strategyAction research and Case studyIdentifying the research „problem‟ and formulating the questionsInterventionSampling and the quasi-experimental elementData collection and data analysisRole of the researcherSummary of research designContext and samplingSelecting the „cases‟SettingThe learning contextThe teachers and style of teachingThe learnersResearch methods: data collectionData collection: linguistic dataSelf-report data: semi-structured interviewsCollection scheduleResearch methods: data analysisTranscription and codingDescriptive analysis and pattern-findingMicrogenetic analysisPilot studyVideo recordingObservation, transcription and coding proceduresReliability and validityReliability (or dependability)Internal validity (or credibility)Ecological validity (or authenticity)SummaryEthical considerationsConsentAnonymity and confidentialityDisclosureControl groupTeacher-researcher relationshipConclusionChapter 6:6.1The interventionTalking or speaking? Clarifying the concept of „spontaneous talk‟with teachersPrinciples of the pedagogical interventionThe teacher talk and behaviour strategiesMacro-strategies (planning the talk, task design and classroommanagement)Micro-strategies (managing spontaneous classroom talk)Strategy 04105106108108109109110110112113113115118119120120

Part 3Chapter 7:7.17.27.37.47.4.17.4.27.5Descriptive analysisIntroductionAnalytical frameworkUnits of analysis: teacher talkUnits of analysis: learner talkLearner L2 questionsLonger learner L2 utterancesConclusion124124130135137142147Chapter 4.28.4.2.18.58.68.7Microgenetic analysisIntroductionTeacher talkCo-construction – teacher as „expert‟The „conversational‟ goal – teacher as „co-participant‟EchoesOther phatic language useInstructional coherence – teacher as „class instructor‟Learner talk: communicative repertoireLearner talk: microgenetic growth and L2 developmentLinguistic development within one spontaneous episodeLinguistic development over time and transferOne learner‟s „verrückte‟ [mad] journeyCollective learning or „distributed‟ microgenesisAdditional benefits of whole class conversational 6168170172178180Chapter 9:9.19.29.2.19.2.29.2.39.2.49.3Analysis of teacher perceptionsIntroductionFactors affecting teacher implementation of the talk strategiesAttitudes to lesson structure and curriculum constraintsAttitudes to error correction and grammatical accuracyHumour and rapport with the classThe „conversational‟ goal and longer exchangesThe impact of the talk intervention programme – changes to oneteacher‟s perceptions and practice over timeSpontaneity and questionsAccuracy vs. spontaneity and teacher correctionHumour and class rapportConclusion9.3.19.3.29.3.39.4Chapter ssionIntroductionSociocultural theory and L2 learningScaffoldingScaffolding: a metaphor under construction or a construct goneunderground?Scaffolding as mediational feedbackScaffolding: the „affective‟ dimensionIRE/F and conversation in spontaneous L2 interactionDistributed learning in spontaneous L2 episodesSpontaneous L2 use in instructed settings: a 197197199200203206208

10.7Limitations of the present study and areas for further research210Chapter onclusionMethodological implicationsResearch methods(Action) research: the pedagogical imperativePedagogical implicationsHow spontaneous L2 talk contributes to L2 learningStrategies for generating spontaneous talk in the classroomProfessional implicationsDevelopment of the three project teachersConcluding endices24710

List of tables and figuresTables2.1Summary of L2 studies of scaffolding as corrective feedback2.2Distribution of L2 studies of talk by context and focus of the scaffolding2.3L2 studies of peer collaborative talk within SCT framework2.4Benefits and limitations of peer-peer scaffolding for L2 learning2.5Features of Spontaneous and Scientific concepts3.1Features of conversation and IRE/F discourse structures4.1Extracts from the National Curriculum Programme of Study for Modern ForeignLanguages (QCA, 2007)5.1Summary of research design5.2Phases of the research study5.3Data Analysis Schedule5.4Summary of issues of validity and reliability6.1Core principles of the pedagogical intervention strategies6.2Teacher 2: Macro Strategy 3 - pre-teaching of interaction language7.1Coding Framework of Interactional patterns7.2:Quantities of TL talk shown as number of 3-second stretches of interaction7.3Teacher 1 (Experimental) Patterns of Interaction7.4Teacher 2 (Experimental) Patterns of Interaction7.5Teacher 3 (Control) Patterns of Interaction7.6Total counts of L2 teacher talk utterances7.7Coding Framework for Learner L2 utterances7.8Overall learner L2 output by utterance type in whole class interaction7.9Opinion statements Teacher 2 Lesson 57.10L2 Longer Uttterances – Teacher 2 Lesson 58.1Coding Framework of teacher and learner talk in non-IRE interactions11

Figures2.1Interactional matrix of SCT studies of L2 talk for learning4.1Unplanned speaking objectives from the Renewed KS3 Framework for Languages(DfES, 2009)6.1Picture stimulus for Teacher 1 Lesson 4 (March 2008)6.2Lesson stimulus Teacher 2 Lesson 1 (January 2008)6.3Teacher 1: Macro Strategy 3 - pre-teaching interaction language7.1Independent Samples T-test comparing the quantity of pupil talk for Teacher 1 and 3classes7.2Individual Learner L2 Output7.3Overall L2 learner output7.4Overall L2 and L1 teacher talk as a percentage of lesson time7.5Teacher 1 Lesson 1: Pattern of L1 Teacher Talk7.6Teacher 2 Lessons 2 and 5: Patterns of L1 Teacher Talk7.7Teacher 3 Lesson 3: Pattern of L1 Teacher Talk7.8One way Anova analysis IRE/F interactions across three classes7.9One way Anova analysis teacher open questions7.10One way Anova analysis teacher restatement as question7.11One way Anova analysis teacher evaluation7.12Overall learner L2 output by utterance type in whole class interaction7.13One way Anova analysis - Learner talk: short phrases7.14Learner L2 and L1 Questions7.15Examples of learner L2 questions – Lesson 5, Teacher 17.16Learner L2 questions produced in group talk activity – Lesson 3, Teacher 27.17Lesson extract: Teacher 2 Lesson 37.18Learner L2 Longer Utterances7.19L2 Longer Utterance – Teacher 1 Lesson 47.20L2 Longer Utterances – Teacher 2 Lesson 67.21L2 Longer Utterances – Teacher 2 Lesson 310.1Model of one teacher‟s talk in classroom spontaneous L2 talk episodes12

AbbreviationsCAQDASComputer assisted qualitative data analysis softwareCILTNational Centre for LanguagesCEFRCommon European Framework for LanguagesDFESDepartment for Education and SkillsDESDepartment of Education and ScienceFLForeign languageGCSEGeneral Certificate of Secondary EducationHMIHer Majesty‟s InspectorateKS3Key Stage 3L1Native language or mother tongueL22nd or other foreign languageNCNational CurriculumQCAQualifications and Curriculum AuthoritySCTSociocultural TheorySLASecond language acquisitionTLTarget languageList of appendicesAppendix 1Transcription systemAppendix 2Initial coding framework from Pilot StudyAppendix 3Coding framework for interaction patternsAppendix 4Coding framework for teacher and learner talk: all lesson dataAppendix 5Coding framework for teacher and learner talk in non-IRE interactionsAppendix 6Letter to parentsAppendix 7Example of lesson language for recyclingAppendix 8Hotseating task exampleAppendix 9Odd One Out task exampleAppendix 10 Spontaneous learner L2 talk from one post-study lesson observation13

Chapter 1: IntroductionThe study of interaction in Foreign and Second Language Acquisition (hereafter F/SLA)research is not new. It is not possible, even briefly, to describe all of the different ways inwhich the broad, multi-faceted concept of interaction has been interpreted and applied in thisfield.Broadly speaking, the majority of researchers accept that interaction can provideopportunities for language acquisition. There is, however, neither consensus as to the precisenature of the relationship between interaction and acquisition nor an agreement as to howmuch or what interaction is best for F/SLA.All theories of second language acquisition seek to account for the way in which learnersacquire a second (third or subsequent) language within a variety of social and institutionalsettings. They all employ metaphors to represent the invisible learning processes involved.Selecting the most resonant theory to explain the phenomenon of language learning isfundamentally a question of emphasis and perspective. This is not to diminish the importanceof theoretical perspectives. The preference for specific terminology is significant becausedeeply-held convictions are couched within superficially simple metaphors. Furthermore,these metaphors can, consciously or subconsciously, shape avenues of inquiry leadingresearchers to prefer (or dis-prefer) certain areas of study.Spoken interaction holds a position of importance in many (though not all) theories of SLA.In general terms, the relative importance attached to spoken interaction, whether teacherlearner, learner-learner or native speaker-non-native speaker interaction, varies in inverseproportion to the emphasis a particular SLA theory ascribes to internal mental processes.That is to say, theoretical models of F/SLA have traditionally aligned themselves with thebasic assumption that language learning is inherently an individual mental process. Whetherdrawing on the linguistic theory of Universal Grammar (Chomsky, 1968; Cook, 1997) orcognitive theory (Anderson, 1980) interaction viewed from this perspective is seen, at one endof the spectrum as one source of „input‟ which is the primary, if not sufficient, condition forstimulating the learner‟s innate language-processing mechanisms for linguistic development(Krashen, 1982) and, at the other end of the spectrum as „output‟, whereby the learner makesuse of the opportunity to test out his/her hypotheses of structure and/or meaning (Swain,1985).For some researchers therefore, spoken interaction is unnecessary, although potentiallyhelpful, for language acquisition (Krashen, 1981; 1998; 2004), as comprehensible input aloneis considered a sufficient condition, so that, according to Krashen (1982) it is “theoreticallypossible to acquire language without ever talking” (1982, p.60). For adherents to this theory,although learner spoken output can play a minor supporting role by providing an additional14

source of „auto‟ input to the learner, it plays no direct role in acquisition. Criticism ofKrashen‟s theory has been wide-ranging, some writers citing the lack of direct evidence insupport of the Input Hypothesis and the fact that its concepts can neither be operationallydefined nor its propositions empirically tested (Jordan, 2004). Other research identifiescontradictory evidence from immersion classrooms, in which learners develop high levels offluency and comprehension but show flawed development in their spoken/written output(Swain, 1985, 1998). Further research has demonstrated that the correct acquisition of certainlinguistic features remains stubbornly impervious to comprehensible input (White, 1987) andthat some focus on form facilitates the acquisition of these aspects in SLA (Ellis, 2002).Finally, although there continues to be enthusiastic support for all of Krashen‟s ideas in somequarters (Ponniah, 2008) and whilst the importance of comprehensible input is accepted by allas having a role in SLA, there are problems applying the theory in the classroom, not leastbecause of the difficulty with knowing what i 1(or input just beyond the current level oflearner competence) is (Payne, 2011).An enhanced role for spoken interaction is assumed by advocates of Long‟s InteractionHypothesis (Long, 1996), which proceeds from the Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1981) – alsosince described as the Comprehension Hypothesis (Krashen, 2004) – to theorise that learnersbenefit from interaction, particularly interaction in which there is negotiation for meaning orform, as this represents opportunities for enhanced input. Much research has been undertakenin pursuit of those types of interaction that present the greatest opportunities for negotiationand modified output, both within laboratory and classroom settings, whether it be type ofinteractional task (Nakahama, Tyler & van Lier, 2001; Nassaji, 2007; Nakatani, 2010, Gass,Mackey & Ross-Feldman, 2005) or the identity of the ideal interlocutor (Sato, 2007; van Lier& Matsuo, 2000; Pica, Lincoln-Porter, Paninos & Linnell, 1996).The dominance of acquisition-based models of L2 learning (where L2 is a language knownor being learnt in addition to one‟s native language) set the focus of SLA research firmly oninteractions that led to meaning comprehensibility (Pica, Young & Doughty, 1987; Pica,1994b). This naturally favoured the singling out of particular interactional moves that cameinto play to remedy moments of incomprehensibility and much empirical work was devotedto comparing the relative effectiveness of these mechanisms in attaining the end goal ofcomprehension.Embedded within this theoretical framework, it is fair to say that theempirical focus on interaction was intense, yet narrow. Whilst interactionist approaches havebroadened more recently (Mackey, 2007), expanding the field of interactional SLA to askmore expansive questions about how interaction creates opportunities for learning, the„isolation for comparison‟ approach still characterises much of the empirical work in this15

paradigm. Nakatami (2010) observes that research on oral communication often isolates onlythose communication strategies that involve negotiation for meaning.This reductionistapproach to the study of L2 acquisition is tightly bound up with the theoretical commitment toviewing cognition as a quintessentially individual endeavour. Whatever the significance ofinteraction for L2 acquisition, the focus still rests predominantly with the learner as inputrecipient, and analysis proceeds from this perspective.Critics of the view that input is a sufficient condition for language acquisition (with orwithout negotiation) and proponents of an output-dependent theory of L2 learning accord,unsurprisingly, greater significance to oral interaction (Yule & Tarone, 1991; Swain, 1985,1998). Situations in which a learner‟s linguistic resources are stretched and s/he needs toattend to the form as well as the meaning of what s/he says are a necessary supplementarycondition for acquisition (Swain, 1985, 1995, 2005). Swain (1995) argued that output pusheslearner to process language more deeply than input alone. This view resonates with vanPatten‟s Input-processing Hypothesis too, which claims that learners naturally processlanguage semantically and require additional targeted stimuli to push them towards structuralprocessing (Van Patten, 1990, 1996). There are therefore ompelling theoretical and empiricalgrounds for exploring the value of output in interaction for L2 learning and oral interaction isan important site of learning, primarily in the sense that it pushes the learner to focus on formin meaning-focused communication. I am convinced that L2 interaction that enables learnersto understand what they are hearing whilst pushing them to focus on the forms they use torespond and make themselves understood in return is valuable to L2 acquisition and manystudies have sourced these theories as a springboard for the investigation of aspects ofinteraction. I argue, however, that there are several limitations inherent in these theories ofSLA, even the Output Hypothesis, which I view as having greater explanatory power than theInput and Interaction Hypotheses alone.The first limitation of the Input and Interaction hypotheses concerns the reliance oncomprehensibility as sufficient evidence of SLA, with all the convergent doubts that thisposition entails. A second, and consequent, limitation is the lack of importance attributed tolearner language in SLA studies within this paradigm. Learning is assumed to take place as aresult of comprehensible input so learner language is not examined for signs of L2development. Thirdly, I view the commitment of the Interaction Hypothesis to focusingpredominantly on the opportunities for negotiation for meaning in moments ofcommunicative failure as a serious constraint. This approach rules out other aspects ofinteraction that may well contribute to SLA.Foster and Ohta (2005) found that aninteractional analysis based on negotiation for meaning ignored utterances that encouraged the16

interlocutor to continue talking, and suggested that signaling understanding as well asmisunderstanding might in fact contribute to L2 learning. Fourthly the fact that this approachpersists in viewing F/SLA in purely psycholinguistic terms (Firth & Wagner, 1997, 2007)reduces interaction to a source of „input‟ or an opportunity to practise „output‟.With thelearner‟s individual cognitive processes as the focal point of this research, there has not beenroom to foreground the role of social and cultural context in L2 interaction and its relationshipwith L2 learning. Despite appeals to re-balance SLA research in favour of socio-lingustic(Tarone, 2000; 2008) and socio-cultural perspectives (Hall & Verplaestse, 2000; Hall &Walsh, 2002; Hall, 2010), these aspects remain marginalised. It is telling that Swain (2000)extended her own concept of „output‟ and reframed spoken interaction as „collaborativedialogue‟, drawing on sociocultural theory. She has since investigated linguistic problemsolving and hypothesis-testing interactions that play out in spoken (and written)communication and prove valuable to L2 learning, viewed as both cognitive and socialactivity (Nassaji & Swain, 2000; Swain & Lapkin, 2002; Swain, Brooks & Tocalli-Beller,2002; Tocalli-Beller & Swain, 2007). The final limitation is common to all acquisition-basedtheories of SLA.The concept of acquisition on which they are based is restricted togrammatical/linguistic competence and these theories do not explain how second languagelearners learn to communicate competently in the L2 (Jordan, 2004).Krashen (1998) said „a problem all output hypotheses have is that output is rare (p.175). Iwould agree that output is rare but I see this as a pedagogical more than a theoretical problem.In the UK secondary classroom context in particular, the affective dimension in L2 interactionis key to overcoming the barriers to learner L2 talk, whether as a result of the limitations inthe interactional architecture of the classroom or as a consequence of the natural reluctancethat adolescent learners have to interacting in their L2 in front of their peers. In my view, theimportance of volition in the process of L2 learning and the interplay between affect andconscious noticing and uptake mean that the most resonant theoretical framework willforeground the affective dimension in its metaphors and constructs.During the last twenty years there has been increasing interest in the social aspects ofinteraction and their impact on language learning. Increasingly, researchers have lookedoutside the dominant paradigms in search of theoretical perspectives to support a redressing ofthe perceived imbalance between the cognitive and social aspects of language learning (Firth& Wagner, 1997, 2007). Some researchers have come to embrace the sociocultural theory ofVygotsky (1962, 1978), hereafter SLT, which resonates with their key concern with languagelearning as essentially a social as well as a cognitive process. There is now a substantial bodyof research in F/SLA which is located within this framework (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994;17

Donato, 1994; Lantolf & Aljaafreh, 1995; De Guerrero & Villamil, 1994, 2000; Antón &DiCamilla, 1997; DiCamilla & Antón, 1998; Nassaji & Swain, 2000; Ohta, 1995, 1999, 2000;Swain & Lapkin, 1998, 2002; Storch, 2002; Foster & Ohta, 2005; Smith, 2007; Todhunter,2007; Gánem Gutiérrez, 2008; Van Compernolle, 2010; Lantolf & Poehner, 2011).To locate my own research in a theoretical framework which accords interaction afundamental role in L2 development and further, to underpin the notion that interaction inwhich the teacher uses supportive dialogic means to guide the pupils to higher levels oflanguage production is particularly fruitful in terms of the opportunities it represents for L2development, I too have drawn on the SLT emanating from the work of Vygotsky (1962,1978), as well as that of others who have elaborated and extended its application to languagelearning and use, both within a formal educational setting and in more naturalistic settings(Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976; Bruner, 1985; Cazden, 1985; Wertsch, 1985; Wells, 1999;Donato, 1994, 2000; Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006).In this introductory chapter I detail first the overarching focus and research purpose of thisstudy, placing it within the context of a body of F/SLA research in which the role of spokeninteraction in the target language within the context of the foreign language classroom hasmuch greater significance. I refer most particularly to recent

In its analysis of spontaneous teacher-learner L2 talk in the secondary foreign languages classroom, the present study captures „in flight‟ instances of learning to talk and talking to . Chapter 1: Introduction 14 Part 1 Chapter 2: Literature review (1) 22 2.1 Sociocultural theory 25 2.2 Key concepts within SCT for interaction and .

Related Documents:

Talking and Non-Talking Animals What distinction is made between talking animals and non-talking animals? Why do Narnians consider it horrible to kill or eat a talking animal when it is okay to kill or eat a non-talking one? What does this say about the importance of speech to the author, or as an attribute of humanity? .

This 3rd edition of the Talking ATM manual is more comprehensive. The key feature of this hand book is instructions on Wincor-AGS Talking ATM, Diebold Talking ATM along with NCR ATM model. Our bank launched NCR Talking ATM in June 2012, while the Diebold Talking ATM was launched in December 2012 and Wi

Five Major Reasons That Talk Is Critical to Teaching and Learning Talk can reveal understanding and misunderstanding. Talk supports robust learning by boosting memory. Talk supports deeper reasoning. Talk supports language

Listening and talking Skills and progression. Listening and talking are core skills for learning and are central to teaching and learning in all subject areas. In order to make good progress in these skills young people require frequent and varied experiences of listening and talking

There are research done on the 3D talking-head on mobile phones as voice interactive services but there is scarce research done on the use of the 3D talking-head as pronunciation learning aid. Therefore, study filling the gap with concentration on the effectiveness of 3D talking-head mobile application in aiding pronunciation learning seems vital.

1.5 Samples of Greeting 1.6 Small Talk 1.7 Reading – Small Talk 1.8 Listening and Speaking – Small Talk 1.9 Language Focus – Small Talk 1.10 Writing – Small Talk 1.11 Speaking – Small Talk 1.12

Es you do the activity, practice saying the Talk About math talk.A E Then, come up with more math talk for the activity. Fill in the sentence starters on handout 1G. Make sure your ideas fit the math talk checklists. Read Headckl 1G out loud, including the math talk checklists. Eath talk qu

Automotive Council The Advanced Propulsion Centre Thermal Efficiency and System Efficiency Spokes, supported by an expert Steering Group, helped to shape the roadmap before and after the workshop. Pre-event Common Assumptions Briefing Breakout Sessions Collective Briefing Process Post-Event Debrief Pre-Event Email 1 day workshop with 45 attendees Post-Event Email Thermal Propulsion Systems .