TBL&L1

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

1/25

http://ltr.sagepub.com/Language Teaching Research

http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/4/3/251The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/136216880000400304

2000 4: 251Language Teaching ResearchMerrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin

Task-based second language learning: the uses of the first language

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Language Teaching ResearchAdditional services and information for

http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/4/3/251.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jul 1, 2000Version of Record>>

at University of Warwick on January 10, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

2/25

Task-based second language learning:

the uses of the first language

Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin Ontario Institute forStudies in Education of the University of Toronto

The present article focuses on the uses of the first language (L1) madeby 22 pairs of grade 8 French immersion students as they complete oneof two different tasks: a dictogloss and a jigsaw. The outcome of eachtask 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 exploratoryanalyses intended to describe differences between and within the tasksin terms of the amount of English (L1) used. We also address therelationship between the amount of L1 use and the quality of studentswriting, 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, forexample, Carroll, 1975). However, research examining therelationship between first language (L1) and second language usein the context of bilingual education for minority language children(see Cummins, 1981; 1993) makes it quite clear that thedevelopment and maintenance of the L1 supports the developmentof the second language. This leads to the seeming paradox that themore use made of the L1, the higher becomes the learners L2proficiency. In this paper, we will provide data that help to explain

this seeming paradox. The data will be interpreted from theperspective of a socio-cultural theory of mind (Wertsch, 1985; Cole,1996; Lantolf, 2000).1

We begin with a brief description of several studies conductedin a context similar to that of the present research: immersion

Arnold 2000 13621688(00)LR070.OA

Address for correspondence: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of theUniversity of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6, Canada;[email protected]

Language Teaching Research 4,3 (2000); pp. 251274

at University of Warwick on January 10, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

3/25

programmes. In immersion programmes, the second language isused as the language of instruction for all or part of the educationalprogramme (see Swain and Johnson, 1997, for a complete

definition). We then briefly consider the theoretical perspectivewhich has driven the analysis and interpretation of our data as wellas the few studies conducted within that framework that haveinvestigated L1 use in second language learning tasks. This isfollowed by a description of our study and an examination of theways in which grade 8 French immersion students made use ofEnglish, their L1, in completing a task where they were requiredto write a short story in French.

1 Immersion studies

Behan and Turnbull (1997) examined the L1 (English) use ofFrench immersion students in a late immersion programme. Thestudents were in grade 7, and had just begun their Frenchimmersion programme in the first term of that year. The task theywere asked to do was prepare for an oral presentation in French.They were to work in groups of four students each and to combineindividually held information about the lifestyle and environment

of native peoples, a task considered by their teacher to be acognitively complex one. All groups were instructed to speak inFrench, but two groups were closely monitored by the researcherswho reminded the students to use French when they slipped intousing English (their L1). Both the talk of the students as theycollaborated on this task and their oral presentations were tape-recorded. The groups of students who were not monitored for theiruse of French used more English than the monitored groups asthey prepared for their oral presentation. Interestingly, and

seemingly paradoxically, the researchers judged the presentationsof the non-monitored groups to be better than those of themonitored groups. Behan and Turnbull found evidence thatinstances of task management, information sharing and vocabularysearches where English was used were carried forward into thefinal oral presentation in French. They concluded that L1 use canboth support and enhance L2 development, functioningsimultaneously as an effective tool for dealing with cognitivelydemanding content (p. 41).

252 Task-based second language learning

at University of Warwick on January 10, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

4/25

Cohen (1994) collected data from third to fifth grade studentsin a Spanish immersion programme over a 5-month period inseeking to determine the roles played by the native and target

languages in processing numerical and word problems inmathematics. Students were observed to favour the use of Englishin their cognitive processing. Although students would read theirmathematical problems in Spanish, they would shift to English assoon as they had some conceptual difficulty, suggesting again thatstudents make use of their L1 to develop an understanding of thecontent of the task. It should be pointed out, however, thatresearchers prompted the students in English.

Blanco-Iglesias, Broner and Tarone (1995) also observed the

language use patterns of children in a Spanish immersionprogramme. They were interested in determining if the patterns ofuse changed from kindergarten through grade 5 as suggested byTarone and Swain (1995). Tarone and Swain had argued that theimmersion classroom developed into a diglossic situation overtime, with the L2 functioning as a superordinate language varietyused predominantly for academic topics and the L1 functioning asthe vernacular. This was because the immersion students had littleto no access to L2 kid-speak in the school context; and this sort

of talking the right talk is central to the emerging image andidentity of young adolescents. In the Blanco-Iglesias et al. study,vernacular forms (e.g. Jerk!; This is cool.) were used, particularlyamongst the fifth grade students, to mark the speakers as in-groupmembers 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, providesno place for an understanding of language as a cognitive tool. Butin the writings and research of Vygotsky (e.g. 1934/1987; 1978) andsuch neo-Vygotskians as Cole (1996), Lantolf and Appel (1994),and Wertsch (e.g. 1985; 1991; 1998), one finds a theoreticalperspective in which language is understood as a mediating tool inall forms of higher-order mental processing (e.g. attending,planning, reasoning, etc.). Furthermore, language derives its

Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin 253

at University of Warwick on January 10, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

5/25

mediating cognitive functions from social activities. Stetsenko andArievitch (1997) state: psychological processes emerge first incollective behaviour, in co-operation with other people, and only

subsequently become internalized as the individuals ownpossessions (p. 161).In our own recent work (Swain, 1995; 1999; 2000; Swain and

Lapkin, 1998; 2000), we have shown how collaborative dialogue, inthe L1 or L2, mediates L2 learning. Collaborative dialogue isdialogue in which speakers are engaged in problem solving andknowledge building (Swain, 2000: 102). Our data demonstrate thatthrough such dialogue, students engage in co-constructing their L2and in building knowledge about it. From their collective

behaviour, individual mental resources can develop. That is, theknowledge building that learners have collectively accomplishedbecomes a tool for the further individual use of their secondlanguage. Initially socially constructed, their joint resolution mayserve them individually (see also Ellis, this issue).

Recently, several researchers have examined the discourse ofstudents working collaboratively on second language learning taskswithin the framework of socio-cultural theory. The objective ofthese 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 schoollearners of Spanish as they participated in a two-way informationgap activity. Although Brooks and Donato did not focus solely onthe use of L1 by these learners, they observe that its use is anormal psycholinguistic process that facilitates L2 production andallows the learners both to initiate and sustain verbal interactionwith 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 writingtasks. The university students in their study were five pairs oflearners of Spanish at the beginner level, and they were all nativespeakers of English. Anton and DiCamillas data demonstrate thecritical importance of the L1 as a psychological tool enablinglearners 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 others interest inthe task throughout its performance, develop strategies for making the task

254 Task-based second language learning

at University of Warwick on January 10, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

6/25

manageable, maintain their focus on the goal of the task, foregroundimportant elements of the task, discuss what needs to be done to solve specificproblems, and explicate and build on each others partial solutions to specificproblems throughout the task.

(p. 321)

Second, the L1 was used to establish and maintainintersubjectivity (Rommetveit, 1985; Wertsch, 1985). This involveddeveloping a shared perspective on the task, setting goals, andnegotiating a positive co-operative tone to the activity. Third, theL1 was used to externalize ones inner speech during cognitivelydifficult activities. This is speech directed to oneself in order todirect and organize ones mental activity.

Villamil and de Guerrero (1996), in their examination of thediscourse of Spanish-speaking university students as they engagedin peer revision of their L2 (English) writing, found that thesestudents used their L1 in ways similar to those found by Antonand DiCamilla. Villamil and de Guerrero identified five mediatingstrategies used by the collaborating students. They identified onestrategy as using the L1, yet two other strategies also madeextensive 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 thetask, and maintaining dialogue (p. 60).

II The study

1 Context

Our ongoing research has involved French immersion classes atthe grade 8 level. These English-speaking students have been

enrolled in immersion since kindergarten, with instruction in theearly years carried out entirely in the medium of French. A periodof English language arts was introduced in grade 3, and by grade5 the instructional time was divided about equally between Englishand French. In general, these students have attained a high levelof fluency, though their L2 speaking and writing skills fall short ofnative-speaker norms.

The two classes we are concerned with in this paper came fromthe same school in a lower-middle to middle-class socio-economic

Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin 255

at University of Warwick on January 10, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

7/25

neighbourhood in Toronto. They were comparable academicallyand 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 workedcollaboratively in pairs, and the pairs for whom we have completedata number 12 (Class D) and 10 (Class J).

The same story was represented in the two tasks. The jigsaw taskprovided a visual stimulus, and the dictogloss, an oral text stimulus.Each task type had been modelled in the participating classes (thedictogloss in Class D and the jigsaw in Class J) prior to the datacollection 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 whomodelled 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. Generallyspeaking, they took turns to tell segments of the narrative insequence until the entire oral story was finished; then they jointlyproduced a written version of it. The dictogloss class heard anative-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 ontheir respective notes. The dialogues of all pairs in both classeswere tape-recorded and transcribed.

Although we originally anticipated that these two taskswould generate attention to form (e.g. morphosyntax) andmeaning (e.g. lexical searches) differentially, that hypothesis wasnot confirmed. We did, however, find notable task differences.Overall, the dictogloss task was more constraining: there wassignificantly less variability among student dyads in Class D

compared to Class J in the number of language-related episodesproduced,2 and in the range of vocabulary in the written narratives.Moreover, Class D produced proportionately more correctreflexive verbs in French than did their jigsaw counterparts. On adiscourse level, Class J tended to number the sentences in theirwritten stories to correspond to the numbered pictures they wereworking from to construct their narratives, and to includeinformation about visual aspects of the pictures such as thecolour of objects depicted (the pictures in Appendix A were

256 Task-based second language learning

at University of Warwick on January 10, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

8/25

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 componentcommon to both tasks was an important factor in encouragingstudents 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 withinand across classes (tasks).

2 Methods of analysis

For most analyses, our unit of analysis is the turn3 (see examples

below). We identified all turns in English or containing English.Based on relevant literature available at the time for review (seeabove) and our close inspection of the transcribed dialogues, weworked out the coding scheme (illustrated below) to categorize theuses of L1 by the students. We proceeded as follows: first, theauthors and a research assistant worked through a transcriptchosen at random, discussing each English turn and agreeing onits function. Then we each took a second transcript and individuallycoded it applying those categories. The categories are listed below.Through an iterative process, we achieved consensus over threesessions. 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) interpersonalinteraction. 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 thestory

(c) task management

Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin 257

at University of Warwick on January 10, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

9/25

2. Focusing attention(a) vocabulary search(b) focus on form; explanation; framing; retrieving gramma-

tical information3. Interpersonal interaction

(a) off task (includes L1 vernacular use)(b) disagreement

The final category above needs to be understood in context.Thatis, as will become clear in the examples below, the L1 was used fora variety of constructive purposes in a consensus-buildingcollaborative activity. The occasional disagreement is inevitableand natural, but was striking enough in our data to merit a separatecategory.

In the following we provide examples from our data to illustratethese categories (D refers to the dictogloss class and J to the jigsawclass; the numbers 1 and 2 refer to any two students in the classeswhose dialogues we are quoting).

a Moving the task along: In Example (a) two Class D studentsdecide 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 journe bien commence) and D2remembers that the passage opens with the sun rising on abeautiful day. They are both right, but they need to decide whereto 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 inorder to get on with the task. This may involve retrieving semantic

information as in Example (b); understanding what they see in apicture as in Example (c); or creating an interpretation of what ishappening in a segment of the pictorial story as in Example (d).

(b) D1: So thats about . . . les pieds sur loreiller?4

(c) J1: Is that a foot? Yeah, ok, its a foot.

(d) J2: Oh, I think I know, she likes this guy maybe[referring to picture no. 8, Appendix A]

J1: Well, maybe. Wow! En tout cas.

258 Task-based second language learning

at University of Warwick on January 10, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

10/25

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

11/25

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

12/25

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 nosignificant differences between the groups. An inspection of thestandard deviations shows large ranges in the amount of L1 use

among student pairs; these ranges are generally more pronouncedin the case of Class J.

Students in both classes made use of their first language mostfrequently for task management purposes: 43 per cent of the L1turns 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, butto differing degrees. Class D, with 22 per cent of their English turnsdevoted to understanding the story, may have had to work harder

Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin 261

Table 1 Number of turns in L1 as percentage of total turns*

Task Jigsaw (10 pairs) Dictogloss (12 pairs)

M SD M SD

L1 turns/total turns 29% 21% 21% 18%

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

Table 2 Number and percentage of L1 turns for three major functions*

Jigsaw (n= 10 pairs) Dictogloss (n= 12 pairs)

M turns SD % turns M turns SD % turns

in L1 in L1

Moving task along

sequencing 0.2 0.8 1% 0.5 1.2 3%

understanding 1.5 4.7 10% 4.3 5.9 22%

task management 6.6 17.4 43% 6.7 6.8 35%

Focusing attention

vocabulary search 4.1 10.7 27% 2.7 2.9 14%

focus on form 1.3 3.6 8% 1.6 2.1 8%

Interpersonal

off-task 1.6 4.6 11% 2.3 4.0 12%

disagreements 0.1 0.4 1% 0.9 1.8 5%

*There are no statistically significant differences between any of these means

based on 2-tailed t-tests

at University of Warwick on January 10, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

13/25

at getting meaning from the oral text than Class J (with 10 percent of turns in L1 in this category) which has a visual, morecontextually embedded stimulus.

Searching for French vocabulary items occurred more frequentlythan focus on form the two purposes for which L1 use is listedunder focusing attention: Class J used 27 per cent of its Englishturns to search for vocabulary items, while Class D did so in 14per cent of its L1 turns. This finding makes sense given the natureof the two tasks; no vocabulary is provided by the series of picturesin the jigsaw task, whereas the dictogloss text provides necessarylexical items. In the focusing attention category, both groups usedEnglish to focus on form in 8 per cent of their L1 turns.

Finally, in the interpersonal category, both classes engaged in off-task behaviour in 11 to 12 per cent of their English turns and therewas 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 assessmentof story quality was arrived at as follows. Two experiencedimmersion teachers who did not know the classes in question ratedthe written narratives on 5-point scales (see Appendix C) for

content and language including vocabulary, morphology andsyntax.6 (Appendix D presents the class average ratings for contentand language for Classes D and J.) The ratings on the latter threescales 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

262 Task-based second language learning

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) Dictogloss (n= 12 pairs)

Story rating Mean Percentage Mean Percentage

rating L1 turns rating L1 turns

Language

above median 4.0 15% 3.2 18%

below median 2.6 41% 1.9 25%

Content

above median 4.0 15% 3.0 20%

below median 2.0 41% 1.6 22%

at University of Warwick on January 10, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

14/25

class median, and those dyads whose content ratings were aboveand 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-mediancounterparts (M = 2.6) use L1 in 41 per cent of their turns. Thecorresponding figures for the same class (Class J) based on thecontent ratings of the above- and below-median groups (M= 4.0and 2.0 respectively) are also 15 per cent and 41 per cent.

This pattern is repeated, though much less dramatically, withinthe dictogloss class: based on their mean ratings for language (inthe written story), the above-median dyads (M= 3.2) use L1 in 18per 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 ClassD, the above-median pairs (M= 3.0) use L1 in 20 per cent of theirturns, and the below-median pairs (M= 1.6) do so in 22 per centof their turns.

Looking across tasks, we can see from Table 3 that the strongerstudent dyads (those obtaining higher language and content ratingsfor their written narratives) use L1 for 15 to 20 per cent of theirturns. Thus the proportion of turns in L1 used by the dyadsobtaining above-median ratings for language in Class J is 15 per

cent, and the corresponding percentage for Class D above-mediandyads is 18 per cent. Based on the content rating, the proportionof turns in English used by above-median dyads in Class J is 15per cent; and the corresponding figure for the above-median dyadsin Class D is 20 per cent.

An important task difference appears for weaker student dyads,however. The below-median student pairs (based on ratings forlanguage) 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 patterncontrasts sharply with the pattern for the below-median dictoglossstudents. Based on their language rating, the below-median dyadsin Class D use the L1 in 25 per cent of their turns; and based onthe content rating, the weaker dyads in Class D use English in 22per cent of their turns.

We conducted the same analysis, not reported in tabular formhere, looking only at the amount of English use for the three top-and bottom-rated dyads in each class. The same pattern seen in

Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin 263

at University of Warwick on January 10, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

15/25

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 andthe language and content ratings of the jigsaw task (Class J); thatis, the lower the ratings on these two indicators of written storyquality, the greater the amount of L1 use. This pattern does nothold for the dictogloss task, where no significant correlations arefound.

c How variable is task performance across pairs? Since the focusof this paper is on L1 use, we were interested in exploring whether

dyads using a similar percentage of L1 turns were also similar onother measures. We had noted in our data, for example, some pairsof students who obtained high story ratings and used a lot of L1in their oral dialogues, and others who obtained equally high storyratings, using little or no English as they completed the task.

For the analysis presented in Table 5, then, we chose two dyadswithin the jigsaw class who used a similar proportion of L1 turns(Pair J2, 23 per cent and Pair J13, 26 per cent). Pair J13 producedonly 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 orcontained 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 Frenchproficiency of their students. The students in Pair J2 (Table 5) wererated a 5 (the boy in the dyad) and 7 (the girl); the boy in PairJ13 was rated a 4 and the girl a 3. As shown in Table 5, the storywritten by Pair J2 obtained the highest possible content rating (5)and a similar language rating (4.9), while J13s story got 2 for

content and 2.1 for language. We also did a count of idea orinformation units in the written narratives, and here again, the

264 Task-based second language learning

Table 4 Correlations between amount of L1 use and quality of the written

stories

Task Language rating Content rating

Jigsaw percentage of L1 turns .68* .64*

Dictogloss percentage of L1 turns .14 .16

*p< .05

at University of Warwick on January 10, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

16/25

story written by J2 contained more relevant information (15 suchunits) than the narrative written by J13 (11 units).

In terms of the functions of the L1, the stronger dyad, J2, usedthe L1 most frequently for task management (13 of 37 or 35 percent of the English turns) and to develop an understanding of thestory (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 L1turns (5 of 11, or 45 per cent) to vocabulary searches, whereas PairJ2 did so for 22 per cent of its L1 turns. It is noteworthy that theweaker pair did not make use of the L1 to focus on form, whileJ2 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 thewhole, reveal statistically significant differences, the reasons being

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 J13

No. of % L1 turns No. of % L1 turnsL1 turns L1 turns

Moving task along

sequencing 0 0% 2 18%

understanding 8 22% 0 0%

task management 13 35% 2 18%

Focusing attention

vocabulary search 8 22% 5 45%

focus on form 5 14% 0 0%

Interpersonal

off-task 0 0% 2 18%

disagreements 3 8% 0 0%

No. of L1 turns 37 101% 11 99%

Total no. of turns 164 41

Percentage of all turns 23% 26%

no. of idea units 15 11

content rating 5 2

language rating 4.9 2.1

at University of Warwick on January 10, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

17/25

twofold: (1) our small sample size and (2) the high degree ofvariability 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 variabilityobserved, we consider this an important finding. It is indicative ofthe fact that a task is but a blueprint, and that it can beimplemented in a wide variety of ways (cf. Coughlan and Duff,1994).

In the present study, the different ways in which the two taskswere carried out by different pairs of students, although partiallydependent on the language proficiencies of the two students ineach pair, were also dependent on a number of other

characteristics which at this point we can only guess at: thestudents perception of the task, of learning French (and theirmotivation to continue to do so), of the researchers, of the teacher,of the recording equipment; the history of the dynamics betweenthe students who chose to work together and the compatibility oftheir perceptions and beliefs; the learners preferences for visualor auditory stimuli; etc. What is quite clear from our data is thatalthough, in general, the pairs of students achieving higher ratingsfor content and language on their written narratives (henceforth

the high-achieving pairs) made less use of the L1, other variablesintervened in affecting the amount of L1 use and its effect onperformance. One intervening variable was the task itself: thevariation in students performance was constrained by thedictogloss task relative to the jigsaw task.

As stated above (see page 258), we had also found that variationin performance was constrained by the dictogloss task in ourprevious 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 ofvocabulary use in the written stories. And now, based on thecurrent data analyses, we see the constraining effect of thedictogloss replicated in aspects of performance associated with thestudents use of English: in general, there is less variation in howmuch English is used for each of the functions the L1 serves forthe students doing the dictogloss task relative to those studentsdoing the jigsaw task. This implies that when used within apedagogical context, different task types may generally provide

266 Task-based second language learning

at University of Warwick on January 10, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

18/25

greater or lesser needs for different uses of the L1 (though in thecurrent study there were no statistically significant between-taskdifferences in the percentages of L1 use in the various categories

we established).Students who did the dictogloss task needed to use their L1more to understand the story than the jigsaw students who had aseries of pictures to interpret. In retrospect, this is not at allsurprising. The dictogloss text provided them with a text in theirL2 and the students had to understand it before they could get onwith the task, and to do so, they made use of the L1. The jigsawstudents, however, could make up the story as they went along butthey often needed to search for the appropriate vocabulary. Unlike

the dictogloss students, the jigsaw students were not provided withessential vocabulary. It was in these two categories, understandingand vocabulary search, where the greatest differences were foundbetween the two groups.

Another interesting difference found between the use made ofthe L1 by the pairs of students carrying out the dictogloss and

jigsaw tasks was that associated with their performance on theirwritten narrative. For both tasks there was less use made of the L1in the dialogue that led to the written stories judged to be of higher

quality. Moreover, the difference in the amount of English usedby those whose stories were judged more positively compared tothose whose stories where judged less positively was smaller forthose who did the dictogloss task than for those who did the jigsawtask. The dictogloss task seemed to even the playing field, that is,the use of English seems less closely related to differences in thequality of the written story.

These results, along with the correlational analyses, suggest aninteraction between achievement (as measured by story quality

language and content ratings) and task with respect to the use ofthe L1. Among lower-achieving students, there is a greater need touse the L1. This, however, interacts with the nature of the task tobe undertaken such that some tasks (e.g. jigsaw) require less useof the L1 among higher-achieving students and more use of the L1among lower-achieving students compared to other tasks (e.g.dictogloss). Here, the input characteristics visual versus textual may be one of the crucial variables.

Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin 267

at University of Warwick on January 10, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

19/25

III Conclusion

One of the reasons we embarked on the analyses of the L1 use ofthese students is because we were taken aback when we first heard

the tapes: there was much more use of the L1 than we hadanticipated. We had heard repeatedly from French immersionteachers that one of the chief reasons they were unwilling toengage their students in group work was that their students woulduse a lot of English, and that such use was counterproductive toone of the stated aims of French immersion programmes: progressin the learning of French. Needless to say, our initial reaction onhearing the tapes was to agree with the teachers. However, webelieve that our analyses of these data demonstrate, ratherstrikingly, that both we and the teachers were misinformed. Whilein about one quarter of the turns on average the students madeuse of some English, only approximately 12 per cent of the L1 turnswere off-task. Some of the latter was the students use of kid-speak vernacular (Blanco-Iglesias et al., 1995): whatever, whocares, wicked, stupid, etc. The rest of their use of English servedimportant cognitive and social functions. This reasoning impliesthat 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 notbe prohibited in immersion classrooms, but neither should it beactively encouraged as it may substitute for, rather than support,second language learning.

As we have seen both in the studies included in the literaturereview and in our own data, students use of the L1 is not fornaught. A socio-cultural theory of mind suggests that the L1 servesas a tool that helps students as follows: to understand and makesense of the requirements and content of the task; to focus

attention on language form, vocabulary use, and overallorganization; and to establish the tone and nature of theircollaboration. Without their L1 use, the task presented to themmay not have been accomplished as effectively, or perhaps it mightnot have been accomplished at all. Herein lies the explanation forthe seeming paradox with which we began this article: judicioususe of the L1 can indeed support L2 learning and use. To insistthat no use be made of the L1 in carrying out tasks that are bothlinguistically and cognitively complex is to deny the use of an

268 Task-based second language learning

at University of Warwick on January 10, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

20/25

important cognitive tool. This is why bilingual educationprogrammes that allow for the development and maintenance ofthe L1 while the L2 is being learned are successful in achieving

their goals: students learn the L2 and acquire the cognitivelychallenging academic content presented to them.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank several individuals for their valuablefeedback on an earlier draft of this paper: Alister Cumming, JimCummins, Rick Donato, Birgit Harley, Jim Lantolf and MilesTurnbull. We would also like to thank Anne Banitowski for herhelp in coding the L1 data.

Notes

1 A main premise of a socio-cultural theory of mind is that cognitive functionssuch as reasoning and attention are mediated mental activities, the sources ofwhich are activities external to the learner but in which he or she participates.Through a process of internalization (Galperin, 1967), external activities aretransformed into mental ones. This process is mediated by semiotic tools.Language (a cultural artifact) is one of the most important semiotic tools. Thisportrayal of language as a cognitive tool is central to the analysis and

interpretation of the data presented in this paper.2 Language-related episodes are defined as any part of a dialogue where thestudents talk about the language they are producing, question their languageuse, or correct themselves or others (Swain and Lapkin, 1995). Swain andLapkin (1998) demonstrate that language-related episodes (LREs) provideoccasions for second language learning.

3 In calculating percentages, brief exchanges (consisting of two or more turns,but coded as one function) were counted in the numerator as one turn.

4 The French examples that appear in this article have not been corrected forgrammatical, spelling or other errors.They appear here as we transcribed themfrom the audiotape.

5 This example could also have been coded as translation. Because there arenumerous examples involving translation in most of the categories weestablished, we decided not to separate cases of translation, but to include themin the functional categories to which each belongs.

6 When we developed these scales, we consulted several existing schemes (e.g.Jacobs et al., 1981). The two immersion teacher-raters we were working withwere comfortable with the descriptors marking only the end points of the 5-point scales. One rater tended to rate consistently one point higher than theother, so we averaged their ratings for each scale (Swain and Lapkin, 2000).

Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin 269

at University of Warwick on January 10, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

21/25

IV References

Anton, M. and DiCamilla, F. 1998: Socio-cognitive functions of L1collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern

Language Review 54: 31442.Behan, L. and Turnbull, M., with Spek, J. 1997: The proficiency gap inlate immersion (extended French): language use in collaborativetasks. Le journal de limmersion 20: 4142.

Blanco-Iglesias, S., Broner, J. and Tarone, E. 1995: Observations oflanguage use in Spanish immersion classroom interactions. InEubank, L., Selinker, L. and Sharwood Smith, M., editors, Thecurrent state of interlanguage: studies in honor of William Rutherford.Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 23951.

Brooks, F.B. and Donato, R. 1994: Vygotskyan approaches to under-

standing foreign language learner discourse during communicativetasks. Hispania 77: 26274.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: 17195.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 languageresearch. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 17393.

Cummins, J. 1981: The role of primary language development inpromoting educational success for language minority students. InCalifornia State Department of Education, editor, Schooling andlanguage minority students: a theoretical framework. Los Angeles:National Dissemination and Assessment Center, 349.

1993: Bilingualism and second language learning.Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics 13: 5170.

Gass, S. and Selinker, L. 1983: Language transfer in language learning.

Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Galperin, P. Ya. 1967: On the notion of internalization. Soviet Psychology

5: 2833.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: 12550.

Lantolf, J.P. 2000: Introducing sociocultural theory. In Lantolf, J.P., editor,Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford

270 Task-based second language learning

at University of Warwick on January 10, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

22/25

University Press, 128.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 secondlanguage research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 132.

Odlin, T. 1989: Language transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Rommetveit, R. 1985: Language acquisition as increasing linguisticstructuring of experience and symbolic behavior control. In Wertsch,J.V., editor, Culture, communication, and cognition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 183204.

Stetsenko, A. and Arievitch, I. 1997: Constructing and deconstructing theself: comparing post-Vygotskian and discourse-based versions ofsocial constructivism. Mind, Culture, and Activity 4: 15972.

Swain, M. 1995: Three functions of output in second language learning.In Cook, G. and Seidlhofer, B., editors, Principle and practice inapplied linguistics: studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 12544.

1999: Language production in SLA: from social to cognitive andback again. Plenary address at SLRF, University of Minnesota.

2000: The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisitionthrough collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J.P., editor, Socioculturaltheory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 97114.

Swain, M. and Johnson, R.K. 1997: Immersion education: a categorywithin bilingual education. In Johnson, R.K. and Swain, M., editors,

Immersion education: international perspectives. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 116.

Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. 1995: Problems in output and the cognitiveprocesses they generate: a step towards second language learning.

Applied Linguistics 16: 37191. 1998: Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent

French immersion students working together. Modern LanguageJournal82: 32037.

2000: Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: exploring taskeffects. 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 secondlanguage use in immersion classrooms. Modern Language Journal79: 2446.

Villamil, O. and de Guerrero, M. 1996: Peer revision in the L2 classroom:social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of socialbehavior.Journal of Second Language Writing 5: 5175.

Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin 271

at University of Warwick on January 10, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

23/25

Vygotsky, L.S. 1978: Mind in society: the development of higherpsychological 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

272 Task-based second language learning

at University of Warwick on January 10, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

24/25

Appendix B Text of dictogloss and its translation

Le rveil-matin de Martine

Il est six heures du matin et le soleil se lve. Martine dort

tranquillement dans son lit. Elle fait de beaux rves, la tte au pieddu lit et les pieds sur loreiller. Quand le rveil sonne, Martine neveut pas se lever. Elle sort son pied et avec le gros orteil, elle fermele rveil. Elle se rendort tout de suite. Mais elle a le rveil quilfaut pour ne pas tre en retard. six heures et deux minutes, unemain mcanique tenant une petite plume sort du rveil et luichatouille le pied. Cest efficace! Finalement Martine se lve. Ellese brosse les dents, se peigne les cheveux et shabille pour prendrele chemin de lcole. Encore une journe bien commence!

Martines alarm clock

Its six a.m. and the sun is rising. Martine is sound asleep in herbed. Shes having sweet dreams, her head at the foot of the bedand her feet on the pillow. When the alarm clock rings, Martinedoesnt want to get up. She sticks her foot out, and with her bigtoe, she shuts off the alarm. She falls asleep again immediately. Butshe has the kind of alarm clock you need to prevent being late. At6:02, a mechanical hand holding a small feather comes out of thealarm clock. It tickles her foot. To good effect! Finally Martine getsup. She brushes her teeth, combs her hair and gets dressed to goto school. Another great start to the day!

Appendix C Rating scale descriptors used for scoring writtennarratives

Written narratives: descriptors used for the end points of four

scales

Content

1 Its difficult to know what the paragraph is about; no story istold

5 A complete story is told; narrative is interesting and holdsones attention

Merrill Swain and Sharon Lapkin 273

at University of Warwick on January 10, 2013ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

7/28/2019 TBL&L1

25/25

Vocabulary

1 Vocabulary generally impoverished; some reliance on English;overuse of some high coverage terms

5 Sophisticated vocabulary; precision in word choice; use ofappropriate register

Morphology

1 Many errors in gender; agreement errors (noun-adj.; personagreement in the verb; spelling of verb inflections, etc.)

5 High degree of accuracy in use of person, number and genderagreement

Syntax

1 Sounds more like English than French; many errors involvingtense, articles, clitics, faulty word order, etc.

5 Quite idiomatic use of French; generally gets the structure ofverbs and their complements correct; presence of one or twosophisticated syntactic structures

Appendix D Average story ratings and idea units by task*

274 Task-based second language learning

Task Jigsaw (10 pairs) Dictogloss (12 pairs)

M SD M 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

Idea units

(max. = 21) 12.7 3.09 12.25 3.47

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

measure