Task-based interaction with lowproficiency 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


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
2
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.
 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
 In cognitively
demanding
activities,
individuals resort
to externalizing
their reasoning
processes in the
private
speech (PS)
form of
to regain selfregulation
3
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
4
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
5
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
6
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
o
Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009
7
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
8
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
9
2. The study

Research questions:
1.
Is there any difference in the amount
of L1 use across the three task types?
2.
Does each of the tasks trigger different
uses of the L1?
Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009
10
Tasks
Dictogloss
(Aural stimulus)
Students listen to
a text and jot down
words to aid recall
Pair members pool
their resources to
reconstruct text
Text reconstruction
(written stimulus)
Text deprived
of function
words
which must
be
inserted
Jigsaw
(visual stimulus)
Each student has
part of the
information
(pictures)
which must be
exchanged to
complete the task
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
11
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
12
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
13
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
14
2. The study: Analysis
Metacognition (talk about task)

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


Metatalk (talk about talk)
 Lexical episodes
 Grammatical episodes
Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009
15
2. The study: Analysis


(1)
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
16
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
17
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
18
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
19
2. The study: Results
RQ1: Amount of L1 use across tasks
Difference closely related to task requirements
Task
Time spent on
task (minutes)
% words in L1
Jigsaw
Dictogloss
Text Rec.
46.32
31.55
45.26
55.2%
75%
78%
Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009
20
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 selfcorrection, 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
21
 L1 mostly
used for:
METACOGNITION (nº episod): Task manag and clarif meaning
METATALK (episodes with greatest nº of words )
 Difference between the % of discourse these episodes amounted to
and the distribution of those episodes across tasks (*sig dif)
RQ2: Uses of the
L1 (%)
Jigsaw
epis
words
METACOGNITION
62.6 52.5
4
Clarifying instructions
26.4
Underst. meaning
Sequencing informat
Making meaning
PS
Task management
Releasing anxiety
Others
1.2
3
22
32.7
9*
Dictogloss
Text Rec.
epis
epis
words
56.0
43.0
* (D/TR) Meaning
words
72.1
51.6
3.3
32*
3.8
25.6*
8.5*
9.3
13.7
* (J/D)Seq inform
8.5
17
36.8*
27.1*
17
METATALK
Vocabulary
Form
37.1 47.4 27.1
12.2*
24.8
7
20
OFF-TASK
0.30
0.7
12
48.2
44
8.2
35.7
The use of the L1 does not involve off-task behavior
* (TR/D)Task
management
* (J) Releas anx
56.8
More form episodes
*(J/TR) Vocab
Focus on diff aspec
Metatalk
Each task type draws the learners’ attention to
different language features derived from different
task demands
Jigsaw:
Text reconstruction:
(Absence of ling input)
Dictogloss:
Spelling: search for vocabulary
Connectors: to organize content
Wide variety of language
features:
process morphosynctatically
to encode meaning
(Written input)
(Aural input)
Connectors: crucial to
organize discourse
Concern for spelling
Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009
Determiners
Passive voice
Students forced to
complete all missing features
Focus directly influenced
by the text
23
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 a great part of their interaction to
discussing form

The distribution of episodes across tasks shows
differences closely connected with tasks demands
derived from the type of stimulus provided, thus
supporting the claim that task type determines differentiated
attention
Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009
24
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
25
Strategies
They used the L1 as a strategy
 to understand the story and focus attention while they
were externalizing PS to capture meaning, focus
attention and generate ideas
J (39%) D (20.7%)
TR (57.4%)
Regulation through L1

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%)
Retrieval of L2 terms from memory

They used intermittent codeswitching 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%)
Production check
Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009
26
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
27
3. Conclusion
Through the L1 learners can think and selfregulate 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
28
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
29
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
30
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
31
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
32
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
33
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
34
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
35
THANKS VERY MUCH!!
¡¡MUCHAS GRACIAS!!
Lancaster - 13-16 September 2009
36