Read Forster & Ohta (2005) and use words and diagrams to show:
1) The design of this mixed methods study;
2) The kinds of quantitative and qualitative data collected;
3) The kinds of quantitative and qualitative data analysis conducted;
4) Whether and how data triangulation was carried out.
Session 13_Mixed Methods Research
Research Literacy (A&HL 5575)
Introduction
!
Mixed methods research, with its focus on the meaningful integration of both
quantitative and qualitative data, can provide a depth and breadth that a single
approach may lack by itself.
! In applied linguistics, this ‘mixed methods approach’ is still a relatively new
phenomenon, but will be used more often in the future as it becomes clear that
combining quantitative and qualitative data provides a more multidimensional
and accurate view of the process and product of second language acquisition.
! Three basic mixed methods designs:
” Explanatory
” Exploratory
” Triangulation
! An eight-step process for designing and conducting a mixed methods study.
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
2
Characteristics of mixed methods research
!
Mixed methods research has defined procedures for collecting, analyzing, and
mixing quantitative and qualitative data in a study, based upon three main
characteristics:
” Timing, or the sequence or order of collecting and analyzing quantitative and qualitative
data in a study.
! Sequentially: collecting and analyzing the data one after the other (quantitative
qualitative, or qualitative quantitative).
! Concurrently: collecting and analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data at the same time
(quantitative + qualitative).
” Weighting, or the priority given to one type of data in the study.
! Equal weight to the quantitative (QUAN) and qualitative (QUAL) data
! Giving one type greater emphasis – to quantitative data (QUAN vs. qual) or qualitative data
(QUAL vs. quan).
” Mixing, or the way quantitative and qualitative data and results are integrated during the
research process. Mixing quantitative and qualitative data can occur at different stages in
the study:
! During the data collection
! The data analysis
! The interpretation of results
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
3
Characteristics of mixed methods research
!
Explanatory Design: If the purpose of the study is to explain quantitative results that were
obtained first, qualitative data can be collected after quantitative data by interviewing (or
administering an open-response questionnaire) to a small number of participants, based on
these quantitative results. Mixing here occurs at two points:
”
When selecting participants for interview and creating interview questions grounded in the
statistical results (connecting the quantitative and qualitative phases)
”
At the interpretation stage of the study, when discussing the results from the two phases.
!
Exploratory Design: If the purpose of the study is to develop a closed-response
questionnaire or survey grounded in the views of the participants, first qualitative data is
collected through interviews and then the questionnaire is developed; then quantitative data is
collected using this questionnaire. Mixing here occurs while analyzing the qualitative data for
codes and themes and transforming them into questionnaire items and scales.
!
Triangulation Design : If the purpose of the study is to compare the quantitative and
qualitative results, both quantitative and qualitative data are collected and analyzed separately.
Mixing here occurs at the data interpretation stage, when the results from two data sets are
compared.
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
4
Explanatory Design
!
The most extensively used design in applied linguistics research.
!
Qualitative findings are used to help explain, refine, clarify, or extend quantitative results.
!
Quantitative and qualitative data are collected and analyzed in sequence: first quantitative
data is collected and analyzed, and then qualitative data.
!
Example: Saito and Ebsworth’s (2004) exploration of Japanese ESL students’ perceptions of
the classroom activities and classroom-related behaviors of their English teachers in the
United States and in Japan. They first surveyed a large sample of Japanese ESL learners in
both countries using a 49-item questionnaire, and then they conducted follow-up interviews
with three students to help interpret and elaborate the results obtained from the survey.
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
5
Explanatory Design
!
The weight in this design is typically placed on quantitative data because the quantitative
data collection represents the major aspect of this mixed methods data collection process;
it also comes first in the sequence.
!
The mixing of the two methods occurs at two stages in the research process:
!
”
First, while developing the qualitative interview protocol and choosing the participants
for in-depth exploration of the quantitative results.
”
Second, while integrating the results from both quantitative and qualitative phases at the
interpretation and discussion stage of the study.
An advantage of the Explanatory Design is that its two separate phases make it
straightforward and reasonably easy to implement for novice researchers. This sequential
nature also makes it simple to describe and report on.
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
6
Exploratory Design
!
When a researcher needs first to explore a topic using qualitative data before measuring
or testing it quantitatively. When studying a topic which has been little explored, so there
is little information about the relevant constructs (ways of conceptualizing the topic) and
how to measure important variables.
!
The qualitative data is collected and analyzed first, followed by the collection and
analysis of the quantitative data.
!
Example: Daud (1995) applied the Exploratory Design to investigate teachers’ attitudes
toward computer-assisted language learning (CALL). In the first phase, five case studies
were conducted in four schools and a university to explore teachers’ attitudes toward
CALL. Next the qualitative findings from these studies were used to develop a 56-item
questionnaire to measure those attitudes, which was then tested for reliability and
validity with a larger sample of school and university teachers.
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
7
Exploratory Design
!
The weight in the Exploratory Design is typically given to the qualitative data, because it
provides the foundation for the quantitative exploration of the topic.
!
The mixing of the two methods occurs while developing the quantitative survey items
based on the qualitative data analysis and also while comparing the quantitative results
with initial qualitative findings.
!
The most popular approach for data analysis is to use the qualitative themes and
categories to develop the quantitative measurement instrument.
!
In writing up the research, a researcher first reports the qualitative data collection and
analysis and then explains the development of the instrument. Next, the quantitative data
collection and analysis are discussed, and finally the overall results of the study are
presented.
!
Like the Explanatory Design, the two-phase nature of the Exploratory Design makes it
straightforward for a researcher to design, implement, and report on.
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
8
Triangulation Design
!
The name triangulation comes from the same term used in ship navigation in which
multiple measurements are used to provide the best estimate of the location at a specific
point, like the point at the top of a triangle.
!
In the Triangulation Design, quantitative and qualitative data are collected
simultaneously.
!
For instance, both a questionnaire and focus group interviews are conducted at the same
time with the same participants, and then a researcher compares the quantitative and
qualitative results.
!
Often quantitative and qualitative data are collected using a questionnaire that contains
closed-ended (quantitative) and open-ended (qualitative) response items.
!
Triangulation design is best suited when a researcher wants to collect both types of data
at the same time about a single phenomenon, in order to compare and contrast the
different findings to produce well-validated conclusions.
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
9
Triangulation Design
!
Example: Lopez and Tashakkori (2006) applied the Triangulation Design to investigate the effects of two types
of bilingual programs (two-way and transitional) on the academic performance and attitudes of fifth grade
students who entered kindergarten or first grade with different levels of English proficiency. They collected both
quantitative data, such as students’ academic achievement scores, English oral proficiency, Spanish reading
skills, and attitudes toward bilingualism, and qualitative data, including interviews with the randomly selected
subsample of 32 students. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected, analyzed, and reported
separately. Quantitative data analysis revealed no significant differences in standardized measures of academic
achievement between the two programs, although significant differences were found among students in oral
English proficiency, Spanish-reading ability, their attitudes, and perceived levels of proficiency in English and
Spanish. Qualitative data indicated that students in the two-way bilingual education program had more positive
attitudes toward bilingualism. Based on the quantitative and qualitative results of the study Lopez and
Tashakkori concluded that despite some similarities in the outcomes, each bilingual education program also has
its unique effects.
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
10
Triangulation Design
!
The weight in this design can be given to either quantitative or qualitative data, or equally
to both.
!
The mixing of the two methods occurs either at the data analysis stage or during the
interpretation of the results from the two components of the study.
!
For data analysis:
!
”
The most popular approach is to compare the quantitative results and qualitative findings
to confirm or cross-validate the findings from the entire study.
”
Another commonly used strategy is to transform qualitative data into quantitative data by
counting codes, categories, and themes (called quantifying), or quantitative data into
qualitative data through cluster or factor analysis (called qualifying) in order to compare it
directly with another data set or include it in the overall analysis.
For reporting, a researcher presents the quantitative and qualitative data collection and
analysis in separate sections, but combines the interpretation of the quantitative and
qualitative findings into the same section, to discuss whether the results from both study
components converge or show divergence.
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
11
Triangulation Design
!
!
Advantages:
”
It typically takes less time to complete than the sequential Explanatory and Exploratory
designs.
”
It can result in well-validated and substantiated findings because it offsets the weaknesses
of one method with the strengths of another method.
Disadvantages:
”
It requires a lot of effort, as well as expertise, to collect and analyze two separate sets of
data simultaneously.
”
It is sometimes technically difficult to compare different quantitative and qualitative data
sets, especially if the two sets of results do not converge.
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
12
Eight Basic Mixed Methods Research Steps
!
Step 1: Determine if mixed methods research is the best approach to address the research
problem that you want to study.
!
Step 2: Select a specific mixed methods design (Explanatory, Exploratory,
Triangulation).
!
Step 3: Write a detailed mixed methods purpose statement for your study.
!
Step 4: Write specific research questions to address the quantitative and qualitative
aspects of your study.
!
Step 5: Choose the quantitative and qualitative data to collect.
!
Step 6: Draw a visual diagram of the procedures in your study.
!
Step 7: Collect and analyze the quantitative and qualitative data for your study – this is
the major part of the study.
!
Step 8: Write the final report reflecting the mixed methods design you used in the study.
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
13
Eight Basic Mixed Methods Research Steps
!
Step 1: Determine if mixed methods research is the best approach to address the research
problem that you want to study.
!
Here are some questions to guide your decision:
”
Would quantitative or qualitative data alone provide too limited an understanding of the
research problem?
”
Would the use of both quantitative and qualitative data enhance understanding?
”
Are there advantages in having both a large sample representative of the population
(quantitative data) and the views or experiences of selected individuals (qualitative data)?
”
On the practical side, do you have the knowledge and skills necessary to conduct both
quantitative and qualitative research?
”
Is there enough time for collecting both types of data?
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
14
Eight Basic Mixed Methods Research Steps
!
Step 2: Select a specific mixed methods design (Explanatory, Exploratory,
Triangulation).
”
Think about the purpose of the study and the rationale for using a mixed methods
approach.
”
Also, consider the timing of the quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis,
the weight given to quantitative and qualitative data sets in the study, and the stage in the
research process where mixing or integration of the quantitative and qualitative aspects of
the study would occur.
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
15
Eight Basic Mixed Methods Research Steps
!
Step 3: Write a detailed mixed methods purpose statement for your study.
”
It typically consists of three sentences and includes:
! The overall purpose of the study
! The purpose of the quantitative component
! The purpose of the qualitative component
”
Use the following script:
! The purpose of this (Explanatory/Exploratory/Triangulation) mixed methods study is to
(state the overall intent and the reason for collecting both types of data for this study). The
goal of the quantitative phase of the study is to (state the purpose of the quantitative aspect
of the study; indicate independent and dependent variables, instruments, participants, and
site). The goal of the qualitative phase of the study is to (state the purpose of the qualitative
aspect of the study; indicate the central phenomenon, type of data, participants, and site).
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
16
Eight Basic Mixed Methods Research Steps
!
Step 4: Write specific research questions to address the quantitative and qualitative
aspects of your study.
”
Specific research questions should be developed for both quantitative and qualitative
aspects of the study.
”
When writing the quantitative research questions or hypotheses it is necessary to specify
independent and dependent variables and focus on their relationship.
”
When writing the qualitative research questions it is necessary to indicate the central
phenomenon that is to be explored.
”
Also formulate a mixed methods research question that spans both quantitative and
qualitative data collection and that reflects the rationale for choosing a specific mixed
methods design.
! How do the qualitative findings explain the statistical results obtained in the quantitative
phase about the relationship between learning styles and language strategies of foreign
language learners?
” This would emphasize the Explanatory Design of the study.
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
17
Eight Basic Mixed Methods Research Steps
!
Step 5: Choose the quantitative and qualitative data to collect.
”
Your research questions should guide the decision about the types of quantitative and
qualitative data to collect in the study.
”
Quantitative data that researchers can consider collecting include closed-response
questionnaire items, test scores, checklists, and records.
”
Typical qualitative data collection methods include open-response questionnaires,
individual and focus group interviews, observations, and artifact analysis (documents and
objects).
”
Quantitative research often requires a large random sampling to allow for the
generalization of the study results to a wider population.
”
Qualitative research generally uses a small purposeful sampling to promote an in-depth
understanding of the explored phenomenon.
”
In a mixed methods study, it is typical to collect both quantitative and qualitative data from
the same sample of the population.
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
18
Eight Basic Mixed Methods Research Steps
!
Step 6: Draw a visual diagram of the procedures in your study.
”
A visual diagram helps you envisage the big picture, so you can see:
! The flow and timing of the quantitative and qualitative data collection,
! The weight given to the quantitative and qualitative data and where the mixing of the two
methods will occur within a study.
”
Including the visual diagram in a research report also helps the readers understand the
study.
”
See Ivankova, Creswell, & Stick (2006) for specific rules for drawing mixed methods
visual models.
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
19
Eight Basic Mixed Methods Research Steps
!
Step 7: Collect and analyze the quantitative and qualitative data for your study – this is
the major part of the study.
”
Explanatory Design: explain or expand the quantitative results, or further investigate the
typical or extreme cases revealed in the quantitative results. The choice of the cases for
qualitative follow-up depends on the purpose of the study and the results of the quantitative
data analysis.
”
Exploratory Design: develop an instrument or identify new variables. The qualitative data
collected via interviews or focus groups is analyzed for codes and themes. If the purpose of the
study is to design a survey instrument, qualitative codes, themes and quotes are used as a basis
for developing items and scales of the survey; if the purpose is to form new variables to further
test them quantitatively, qualitative themes are used to help inform the quantitative phase of the
study.
”
Triangulation Design: transform data (quantifying qualitative data or qualifying quantitative
data) or compare the results. Depending on which data set, quantitative or qualitative, carries
more weight in the study, qualitative codes and themes may be counted for frequencies of
occurrences (quantifying), or quantitative data is statistically transformed into themes using
cluster or factor analysis (qualifying).
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
20
Eight Basic Mixed Methods Research Steps
!
Step 8: Write the final report reflecting the mixed methods design you used in the study.
”
The structure of your report should follow the type of the mixed methods design used.
”
You should be careful to make clear distinctions between the quantitative and qualitative
phases of your study, and indicate their weighting.
”
Depending on the sequential or concurrent timing of the data collection and analysis in the
study, the procedures and the results should be reported differently.
! For example, in the Explanatory, Exploratory, where the quantitative and qualitative data sets are
collected and analyzed one following another, the procedures should be reported in different
sections to emphasize the sequential order and the connections between the phases.
! In the Triangulation, the procedures should be reported jointly to show the convergence of the
two methods. The findings from the quantitative and qualitative components of the study should
also be compared and interpreted in the Discussion section of the report.
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
21
Eight Basic Mixed Methods Research Steps
!
Step 8: Write the final report reflecting the mixed methods design you used in the study.
”
The structure of an Explanatory or Exploratory Design report typically follows the
sequential character of the design:
! The initial data (quantitative or qualitative) collection and analysis is described first,
! Followed by the description of the further qualitative or the quantitative data collection and
analysis.
! A separate section in the report discusses how the two phases were connected in the
research process – for example, selecting follow-up cases in the Explanatory Design or
developing a survey instrument in the Exploratory Design.
! During the discussion of the study results, the researcher explains how the qualitative
findings helped elaborate or extend the quantitative results in the Explanatory Design, or
how the qualitative findings lead to the quantitative results in the Exploratory Design.
”
When reporting a Triangulation Design study quantitative and qualitative data
collection, analysis, and results are presented in separate sections.
! During the discussion of the overall study results, the researcher combines the
interpretation of the quantitative and qualitative findings to see whether they support each
other or diverge.
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
22
Sample Studies
!
Explanatory Design studies in applied linguistics research:
”
Reinhardt, J., & Nelson, B. K. (2004). Instructor use of online language learning
resources: A survey of socio-institutional and motivational factors. ReCALL, 16(2),
292–307.
”
Saito, H., & Ebsworth, M. E. (2004). Seeing English language teaching and learning
through the eyes of Japanese EFL and ESL students. Foreign Language Annals,
37(1), 111–124.
”
Thang, S. M. (2005). Investigating Malaysian distance learners’ perceptions of their
English proficiency courses. Open Learning, 20(3), 243–256.
”
Yoon, H., & Hirvela, A. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2
writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 257–283.
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
23
Sample Studies
!
Exploratory Design studies in applied linguistics research:
”
Daud, N. M. (1995). A computer attitude scale for language teachers. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 8(4), 355–363.
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
24
Sample Studies
!
Triangulation Design studies in applied linguistics research:
”
Berne, J. E. (1998). Examining the relationship between L2 listening research,
pedagogical theory, and practice. Foreign Language Annals, 31(2), 169–179.
”
Foster, P., & Ohta, A. S. (2005). Negotiating for meaning and peer assistance in
second language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 402–430.
”
Hawkey, R. (2006). Teacher and learner perceptions of language learning activity.
ELT Journal, 60(3), 242–252.
”
Hinger, B. (2006). The distribution of instructional time and its effect on group
cohesion in foreign language classroom: A comparison of intensive and standard
format courses. System, 34(1), 97–118.
Vafaee, A&HL5575 (Class 13)
25
Applied Linguistics 26/3: 402–430
doi:10.1093/applin/ami014
ß Oxford University Press 2005
PAULINE FOSTER and AMY SNYDER OHTA
This paper investigates the value of language classroom negotiation of
meaning from both cognitive and sociocultural perspectives. According to
Long (1985, 1996) comprehensible input gained through interactional adjustments such as negotiating meaning and modifying output is central to second
language acquisition, and much research has been undertaken to discover
which classroom activities give learners the greatest benefit from this type of
interaction (Pica 1994). This paper discusses the measures typically used to
identify negotiated interaction and proposes that more rigorous definitions
need to be employed to separate signals of communication problems from
signals of interest and encouragement. In the study reported for this paper,
learners were recorded during an interactive classroom task, and the incidence
of negotiation moves (learners’ clarification requests, comprehension and
confirmation checks) was calculated by counting only those instances where
communication problems were clearly signalled. The quantitative results show
that the incidence of negotiating meaning was very low. A qualitative analysis
of the data subsequently investigated what was going on in the long stretches
of interaction that lacked any signs of meaning negotiation. A picture
emerges of learners actively assisting each other to transact the task through
co-construction and prompting. Learners expressed interest and encouragement
while seeking and providing assistance and initiating self-repair of their
own utterances, all in the absence of communication breakdowns. Obtaining
completely comprehensible input appeared to be of lower priority than
maintaining a supportive and friendly discourse. Negotiation is one of a range
of conversational processes that facilitate SLA as learners work to understand
and express meaning in the L2.
INTRODUCTION
Sociocultural and cognitive approaches to second language acquisition
differ considerably. For cognitive approaches, second language acquisition
is essentially the mental process of acquiring systems of knowledge
(morphosyntactic, phonological, lexical), which make up the target language.
Researchers in this field are primarily interested in how the brain processes,
stores, and retrieves information, and therefore in such things as memory,
attention, automatization, and fossilization (see, for example, Robinson
2001). Their main focus is on the cognitive abilities of the learner and the
way these interact with the task of processing and, hopefully, acquiring
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
Negotiation for Meaning and
Peer Assistance in Second
Language Classrooms
PAULINE FOSTER and AMY SNYDER OHTA
403
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
a second language. Progress in acquiring the second language system is
seen as manifested by increased fluency and accuracy, and a wider range
of syntactic structures, as these reflect expanding knowledge that the learner
can draw on automatically.
For sociocultural approaches1 on the other hand, language development
is essentially a social process. These approaches view mind as distributed
and learning2 as something inter-mental, embedded in social interaction.
This means that individuals and environments mutually constitute one
another and persons are not considered to be separable from the environments and interactions through which language development occurs.
In this view, knowledge is not owned solely by the learner, but is also a
property of social settings and the interface between person and social
context. Language development can be studied by examining distributed
cognition—how a learner makes use of the L2 in interaction with other
people and artifacts. Development is visible through microgenetic analyses
of episodes of interaction, as the learner demonstrates increased independence (Ohta 2001; Hall and Verplaeste 2000; Lantolf 2000). Researchers are
also interested in processes of attention and memory and how these are
revealed in learner engagement in L2 interaction. Learner perspectives are
a rich source of data (Kanno 2003). For researchers, preserving the integrity
of environments and the people and interactions embedded in them are
critical, as these work to form any development that occurs.
We acknowledge at once that the two approaches have different strengths
and weaknesses. In cognitive approaches to SLA quantitative methods are
generally favoured; objectivity is important and generalizability of research
findings is valued, as is demonstration of causation. Dependent variables
are defined, controlled, subjected to different treatments and measured
statistically to discover any significant effects. From a sociocultural perspective, however, quantification such as this risks sacrificing the richness
of the interaction that occurs, eliminating the subjectivity of both researcher
and study participant. Selection of categories for quantification is viewed
as sacrificing the whole for the sake of a partial picture that may not apply
to any real-world situation. When interactions are reduced to tables and
figures, other researchers are left without a way to see what really transpired
or validate findings for themselves. And, while generalizability is a goal of
experimental and quasi-experimental research, in SLA many studies are so
small (and, it must be said, so infrequently replicated) that such claims could
sometimes be questioned.
Sociocultural approaches prioritize qualitative research methodology and
pay close attention to the settings and participants in interactions.
Quantification may be used to gain a partial understanding of a data set,
but categories for quantification must emerge post-hoc from the data being
analysed; application of a pre-determined set of categories to a different data
set is avoided. Descriptive work is valued, and researchers work to preserve
the human experience and to avoid reductionism. However, sociocultural
404
MEANING AND PEER ASSISTANCE IN SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
approaches are unable to show causation or produce generalizable results.
Research focuses on intensive analysis of small groups of subjects, hoping
to build a robust picture of SLA processes through the accumulation of
such small studies. Sociocultural research is a slow process because of the
intensive nature of transcription and analysis. The small number of subjects
and the case study approach is often criticized by those who prefer
approaches able to handle larger numbers of subjects. Representativeness
of data samples may be doubted as well. Whereas researchers in this
tradition may present samples which illustrate a point they wish to make,
other researchers have no way of knowing how typical these are of the data
as a whole.
Despite these differences, researchers using each of these approaches
share a strong interest in how learners develop facility in an L2 via social
interaction. Both seek to understand data sets in which learners talk to one
another in the language being learned. Both are interested in how it is
that interaction promotes SLA. But the two research communities work in
relative isolation from one another. Methodologically and theoretically, there
seems to be little common ground for discussion, so there is very little
collaborative work. This paper is therefore somewhat unusual, being born
of a collaboration between two researchers who differently locate mental
processes: a researcher (Ohta) who sees L2 development in inter-mental
(between-people) processes and one (Foster) interested in the internal
mental processes of SLA. Historically, the collaboration has emerged from a
shared interest in naturalistic classroom data, combined with shared concerns
about the role negotiation for meaning (NfM) is assumed to take in learner–
learner interaction. We decided to work together in order to gain a deeper
understanding of what NfM does and does not do in a particular classroom
data set and to move beyond NfM to consider what other opportunities for
language development occur in interactive L2 data.
In this paper, we do not try to resolve the tension between two very
different theoretical and methodological approaches. They are based on such
different assumptions regarding the basics of human communication and
learning (see, for example, Dunn and Lantolf (1998)) that we cannot do so.
Similarly, we do not aim to prove the superiority of one approach or the
other, nor do we have the space to query either of them in any great depth.
But anyone who is interested in language learning should be willing to
explore what can be learned by delving into theoretical and methodological
approaches that are not their own, and we think a multi-perspective analysis
of data should be, at the very least, thought-provoking.
Our joint focus in this endeavour is on NfM, and we propose to use
two sets of research tools, cognitive and sociocultural, to examine it. We
wish to examine NfM ‘from within’ by using an approach congruent to that
used in other NfM research (i.e. a cognitive one), and to look beyond NfM
by using a sociocultural analysis of the same data. Without abandoning our
respective theoretical ground, we hope that such collaboration would deepen
PAULINE FOSTER and AMY SNYDER OHTA
405
THE ROLE OF THE NEGOTIATION FOR MEANING IN SLA
Our first task must be to define the central term in our research. Negotiation
for meaning is a very familiar concept3 in cognitive approaches to second
language acquisition. It is founded upon Krashen’s (1981, 1982, 1985)
notion that knowledge of a second language is acquired through exposure
to comprehensible input. This is input which is pitched at what
Krashen calls the ‘i þ 1’ level, that is to say just a little beyond the learner’s
current L2 knowledge and which, being embedded in input which is
otherwise comprehensible, is likely to be understood, and consequently
acquired.
According to Long (1985, 1996) the most valuable way in which input
is made comprehensible is through interactional adjustments. These are
the attempts of learners and their conversation partners to overcome
comprehension difficulties so that incomprehensible or partly comprehensible input becomes comprehensible through negotiating meaning. In these
negotiations, problem utterances are checked, repeated, clarified, or modified
in some way (lexically, phonologically, morphosyntactically) so that they are
brought within the optimum i þ 1 level. The value in these negotiations,
especially in group work, is that they can provide i þ 1 input which is madeto-measure for individual learners and their current interlanguage level.
Moreover, they provide learners with negative evidence about their own
output, and push them to modify it to make it more comprehensible and
more target-like (Swain 1985).
In the mid-1980s there was a considerable amount of research (of the
cognitive, quantitative kind) to determine which kinds of classroom activities
were most productive in terms of negotiated interaction (e.g. Varonis and
Gass 1985; Gass and Varonis 1985; Doughty and Pica 1986; Rulon and
McCreary 1986; Pica et al. 1989; see also Pica 1994 for an overview). Such
studies suggested that information gap tasks transacted by dyads were likely
to give most opportunities for NfM. There are many versions of information
gap tasks, but each has the same basic rationale: hide certain information
from one or more participants so that, in order to get it, they need to
understand and be understood with clarity. This makes it likely that
meanings will have to be negotiated, incomprehensible input will be made
comprehensible and, if it contains forms and structures which are just a
little beyond the learner’s current level of competence (i.e. the crucial ‘þ1’)
then second language acquisition (SLA) is facilitated. SLA is also facilitated
by the learner’s having to modify utterances for which an interlocutor has
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
our understanding of the other’s point of view and our understanding
of how language development proceeds. Our differences remain but do
not prevent us from sharing an exploration of classroom L2 interactive
processes and the important role of learner–learner interaction in language
development. (Swain et al. 2002).
406
MEANING AND PEER ASSISTANCE IN SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS
I would like to suggest that negotiation for meaning, and especially
negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments by the NS
or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it
connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective
attention, and output in productive ways (Long 1996: 451–2,
original emphasis)
Communication breakdowns are thus valuable. They orient the learner’s
attention to form at just the times and in just the places where it is best
exploited by internal learning mechanisms. As Skehan (1996: 1) puts it, they
can be described as ‘the pressure points for language change’.
More recently, work on the role of interaction in SLA has shifted away
from pairs of learners transacting an information gap task towards the
recasting (e.g. Oliver 1995; Lyster 1998; Long et al. 1998; Braidi 2002)
and focus-on-form episodes that are available in whole class settings
(e.g. Doughty and Varela 1998; Ellis et al. 2001) and are often, although not
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
requested clarification, prompting attention to language forms and precision
in phonology, lexis, and morphosyntax. Information gap activities thus
provide good opportunities for learners to notice, and fill, gaps (Schmidt and
Frota 1986) in their current interlanguage knowledge.
Further work into and discussions of NfM through the 1990s and beyond
have continued to describe valuable negotiating opportunities arising from
incidences of communication failure. For Pica (1992: 200) NfM is ‘an activity
that occurs when a listener signals to the speaker that the speaker’s message
is not clear and the speaker and the listener work linguistically to resolve
this impasse.’ Elsewhere (Pica 1994: 494) NfM arises when ‘communication
is interrupted’ or there is ‘difficulty in message comprehensibility’. For Gass
and Selinker (1994: 209) NfM comprises ‘instances in conversation when
participants need to interrupt the flow of the conversation in order for
both parties to understand what the conversation is about’. Long (1996: 425)
describes ‘communicative trouble’ which ‘can lead learners to recognize that
a linguistic problem exists, switch their attentional focus from message
to form, identify the problem and notice the needed item in the input.’
Similarly, Mackey et al. (2000: 476) situate NfM at points of ‘communication
breakdown’ and describe it as triggered by ‘something incomprehensible
[which] becomes the impetus for learners to recognize an inadequacy in
their own rule system.’ For Ellis (1999: 3) it is a ‘communicative impasse’
which leads to NfM and similarly in Ellis et al. (2001) negotiation is
something which occurs after a signal that there is a linguistic problem which
needs explicit resolution.
Thus, learners’ linguistic problem-solving is regarded as being of positive
benefit to SLA. Long’s 1996 Interaction Hypothesis, one of the most cogent
and thorough arguments for the value of interaction in SLA, clearly situates
interlanguage development at these moments where interactional partners
attempt to resolve difficulties they are having in understanding each other.
PAULINE FOSTER and AMY SNYDER OHTA
407
FOUR PROBLEMS WITH PROBLEM SOLVING THROUGH NfM
We do not dispute that Long (1996) makes a good theoretical case for NfM
as valuable because of its privileged and productive connection of input,
internal learner capacities, selective attention, and output, but we raise four
concerns about it:
1 it can be tedious and face threatening;
2 it is typically lexical in nature and not morphosyntactic;
3 it is hard to identify because its surface structures are often ambiguous
(e.g. a clarification request can be identical in form to an expression of
enthusiastic comprehension);
4 quantifying instances of NfM may not provide an accurate depiction of
the value of a task in providing participants with opportunities for
language learning.
Regarding the first point, Aston (1986) noted that NfM is potentially
demotivating because it emphasizes a lack of success in using the target
language. Learners must acknowledge not understanding or not being
understood. But, as interaction is a social activity as well as a language
learning one, its social dimension cannot be overlooked. Learners who
partially understand, ‘getting the gist’ of what someone is saying, or who
fear appearing to be pushy or a fool, may avoid interrupting to request
clarification or repetition of things that are not entirely clear. The facethreatening nature of NfM was one explanation for why so little of it could
be detected in Foster’s (1998) study. Actively seeking to put learners into
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
always, initiated by a native speaker or teacher who has not encountered
a communication failure, impasse, or breakdown, (i.e. who has understood
what the non-native speaker meant) but who has chosen where some
language focus would be most useful. Such a shift moves us away from
classroom groupwork (in which learners interact with each other) towards
a situation where a more competent speaker (the teacher, or a native
speaker) chooses to turn the learner’s attention productively from meaning
and towards form. Much valuable work has been done on the way such
feedback, recasting, and other language-related-episodes (Swain 2001)
might shift a learner’s attention to language form. In this paper, however,
we wish to return the focus to interaction between non-native speakers
working together on a classroom task because this is an extremely common
and widely-promoted practice in communicative language teaching, and
because the idea is still prevalent that, as SLA is facilitated through
learners negotiating solutions to communication failures, such failures
could be usefully engineered through classroom task design. In this view,
there is an assumption that learners are on the whole not predisposed to
focus on language form, but will do so when communication failure
means they have to.
408
MEANING AND PEER ASSISTANCE IN SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
situations where they are somehow required to track each other’s
understanding very closely (say, by designing tasks where nothing could
be achieved otherwise) invites frustration and embarrassment, two feelings
which probably do not facilitate SLA.
The second point is related to the first. As Lewis (1993) says, much can
be communicated successfully by lexis and contextual clues alone. (This
is very clearly the case in pidgin languages). The research on NfM has
found that communication breakdowns are more likely to be due to
problems with lexis than with morphosyntax, because morphosyntax is
not so communicatively load-bearing. Missing, incorrect or unrecognized
morphemes marking tense, case, or gender do not necessarily lead to
communication failure in the way that missing, incorrect, or unknown
words do. Sato (1986), Foster (1998), Pica (1992), and Pica et al. (1993) all
find that it is predominantly problems with lexis, and not morphosyntax,
that cause communication failure. Extraordinarily, of the 569 negotiation
sequences identified in the Pica (1992) data, not one was morphological in
nature. Thus, NfM is not only something which can be irritating and
frustrating, and something which people are naturally disinclined to, it is
also something which seems to miss the mark in SLA as far as morphosyntax
is concerned.
The third problem, that of identifying NfM in transcripts, is one for
researchers and not for learners. If NfM facilitates SLA, then finding out
where, how, and why it happens and what kinds of interactional adjustments it might provoke, are all valid research questions; these questions
require the researcher to identify correctly where learners attempt to
repair a communication breakdown. As we discuss below, this is not
straightforward. A rising intonation and verbatim repetition of a partner’s
utterance may signal understanding and interest in further information
just as easily as it may signal a lack of understanding and desire for
clarification.
Fourth and finally, when NfM is used as a measure of a task, the quantitative analysis may not present an accurate depiction of a task’s value in
terms of providing opportunities for SLA. Nakahama et al. (2001) investigated
NfM in a two-way information gap task and a conversational task in a
qualitative study that combined discourse analysis and participant interviews.
They conclude that the traditional categories of NfM do not capture how
the two tasks functioned in affording learning opportunities to participants.
The conversational task resulted in fewer instances of NfM, but was
more challenging and provided more opportunities to consider the broader
discourse. Nakahama et al.’s findings suggest that the results of NfM research
be considered with caution, as frequency of NfM moves are not the only
factors which make a task useful for language learning. Their work
underscores the value of a more holistic approach to SLA which looks more
broadly at the wide range of opportunities learners encounter which result in
greater facility with the language being learned.
PAULINE FOSTER and AMY SNYDER OHTA
409
This paper seeks to do two things. First, to examine the robustness of
the measures traditionally used to identify incidents of NfM and their
effectiveness in tracking communication breakdown. We look at definitions
used in previous research studies and the data samples (when given) to
illustrate them. We discuss the difference between the ‘surface’ form of a
negotiation move (such as a confirmation check) and its pragmatic function
(to express interest rather than confusion), and the potential difficulty this
presents to coders.
We then examine data samples from two second language classroom tasks
in which learners are exchanging information with partners and we quantify
the incidence of communication problems leading to NfM, and the number
of interactional modifications triggered accordingly, basing our coding not
on surface structures, but on the wider context and, crucially, on interlocutor
response. In other words, if the interlocutor addresses a communication
failure, we assume there was indeed one.
Secondly, and in contrast to all other NfM studies, we look at the rest of the
data, using a sociocultural approach (Lantolf 1994; Ohta 2001). As pointed
out by Pica (1996) the processes beneficial to SLA which occur in NfM can
surely also occur when learners are not stuck in some comprehension-related
impasse and using a focus-on-form to get themselves out of trouble. Looking
at places where there is no communication trouble, we qualitatively examine
the SLA opportunities that may emerge, with particular interest in how
learners support one another during peer interaction. In other words, we
explore the ways that success in communicating with and assisting a partner
may facilitate SLA.
IDENTIFYING THE NfM IN RESEARCH DATA
Despite Aston’s (1986) reservations that the requirement to check and clarify
language can be demotivating for learners, the design of many research
studies into NfM reflects an assumption that if some NfM is good for SLA,
then more must be better (see for example, Pica et al. 1993; Kasanga 1996).
Research such as this has sought to show which tasks and task conditions
are likely to maximize its occurrence. The main methodology has involved:
(1) designing and implementing an information gap task or tasks, usually
requiring precise information to be pinpointed by the participants; (2) audiorecording participant talk during task implementation; (3) transcribing the
talk; (4) coding instances of negotiation, typically of comprehension checks,
clarification requests and confirmation checks; and (5) comparing groups or
tasks based upon the frequency of these ‘three Cs’ and drawing conclusions
about which task or tasks are most likely to promote SLA. Such studies all
require the coding and counting of instances of negotiation.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER
410
MEANING AND PEER ASSISTANCE IN SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS
DEFINITIONS OF THE THREE C’S
The original definitions of comprehension checks, confirmation checks, and
clarification requests are in Long’s (1980) dissertation. Long defines these by
their form and function as follows:
Comprehension checks: ‘Any expression by an NS (native
speaker) designed to establish whether that speaker’s preceding
utterance(s) had been understood by the interlocutor. These are
typically formed by tag questions, by repetitions of all or part of
the same speaker’s preceding utterance(s) uttered with rising
question intonation, or by utterances like Do you understand?
which explicitly check comprehension by the interlocutor’ (Long
1980: 82, original emphasis)
Confirmation checks: ‘A confirmation check was any expression
by the NS immediately following an utterance by the interlocutor
which was designed to elicit confirmation that the utterance
had been correctly understood or correctly heard by the speaker.
Thus the man? following Next to the man by the other speaker is
a confirmation check. Confirmation checks are always formed by
rising intonation questions, with or without a tag (the man? or the
man, right?). They always involve repetition of all or part of the
interlocutor’s preceding utterance. They are answerable by a
simple confirmation (Yes, Mmhm) in the event that the preceding
utterance was correctly understood or heard, and require no
new information from the interlocutor’ (Long 1980: 81–2, original
emphasis)
Clarification requests: ‘Any expression by an NS designed to
elicit clarification of the interlocutor’s preceding utterance(s).
Clarification requests are mostly formed by questions, but may
consist of wh- or yes–no questions (unlike confirmation checks)
as well as uninverted intonation and tag questions, for they
require that the interlocutor either furnish new information or
recode information previously given. Unlike confirmation checks,
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
Problems with coding and quantification have been discussed by
researchers such as Ellis (1999), Polio and Gass (1997), and Schachter and
Gass (1996). For reliability and generalizability of research findings, the
coding of categories is absolutely critical, as is the ability of researchers to
apply the categories used in previous research. Interrater reliability scores
are one way to preserve internal reliability of a research study, but not
necessarily its external generalizability. In order to do this, clear definitions
including examples must be available for the whole research community
to work from. In the case of NfM, the definitions commonly used for the
NfM comprehension checks, confirmation checks and clarification requests
are from Long (1980), or else are closely based on them.
PAULINE FOSTER and AMY SNYDER OHTA
411
Aside from the examples cited in these definitions, Long provided no further
examples to show what utterances did or did not merit coding in these
categories. The examples Long provides in his definitions show how to
identify the form, but not how to identify the function of the categories.
Long states that ‘the man? following next to the man by the other speaker
is a confirmation check’ (Long 1980: 81). However, from this two-utterance
example, it is not clear that what is occurring is, indeed, confirmation. The
utterance the man may be working to confirm, clarify, or to do something
else, depending upon the surrounding discourse, and this is not provided.
Lack of extended examples is particularly a problem for confirmation
checks (Ohta, 2005) and clarification requests, the two categories which are
most difficult to apply in practice.
In some negotiation research, further examples have been provided.
Table 1 lists some of these.
Examples 1 through 6 illustrate utterances with the form of comprehension checks, but we do not have enough of the context to see if they
function as such. Rather than indicating a communication problem, they
may in fact be performing some other discourse function, such as expressing
agreement or encouragement to continue. It is strange that more context
is not provided to clearly show how NfM resides at points of breakdown.
Pica’s (1987) examples, listed in 7 and 8, are the exception—they provide
enough text to show how the indicated lines are interpreted by the interlocutor,
something which is necessary in order to determine how they function in
the discourse. In both 7 and 8 the indicated lines result in reformulation of
the trouble-source. These responses unambiguously demonstrate that the
recipients understood these lines as negotiation moves.
Thus, ample context is needed whenever coding is used because turns
with the same shape have different functions in conversation. While
repeating, with rising intonation, a portion of the preceding speaker’s
utterance may indicate a comprehension problem, this sort of utterance has
other functions and does not necessarily indicate communication difficulties.
In fact, such an utterance may be used to invite the speaker to continue.
A continuer is an utterance that shows that the talk is unproblematic,
prompting the speaker to go on. Repetition with rising intonation may also
function to provide space within the conversation for the speaker to
formulate his or her answer. In this way, such utterances provide evidence
of comprehension, not only of comprehension breakdown. When a speaker
is able to correctly repeat the preceding utterance, it is possible that the
utterance was comprehended. In order to determine, therefore, how the
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
in other words, there is no presupposition on the speaker’s part
that he or she has understood or heard the interlocutor’s
previous utterance. While questions are the most frequent form
of clarification request in these data, they are also effected by
statements like I don’t understand, and imperatives such as Try
again’ (Long 1980: 82–3, original emphasis)
412
MEANING AND PEER ASSISTANCE IN SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS
(1)
S1:
The homemaker woman
! S2:
The homemaker?
(p. 236)
Source: Pica et al. (1989)
(2)
NNS:
. . . this game
! NS:
this game
(p. 87)
(3)
NNS:
this picture is a view
! NS:
a view?
(p. 87)
(4)
NNS:
This house has three window in first floor
! NS:
Three windows?
(p. 87)
Source: Gass and Selinker (1994)
(5)
NNS1: When can you go to visit me?
! NNS2: Visit?
(p. 210)
Source: Long and Sato (1983)
(6)
S:
Carefully
! T:
Carefully?
(p. 276)
Source: Pica (1987)
(7)
NS:
did you get high marks? good grades?
! NNS:
high marks?
NS:
good grades A’s and B’s _______ did you get
A in English?
NNS:
oh no in English yes em B
(p. 5)
(8)
NNS:
my country say the people from there the many
many times all time they say they are the last
aysti in the Sahara
! NS:
the last aysti? aysti?
NNS:
they say maybe another word _____ in the Sahara
understand?
NS:
I understand Sahara, but I don’t understand
aysti (p. 7–8)
(continues until resolved)
Source: Pica and Doughty (1986)
repeated material is functioning, a close examination of the sequential
development of the talk is needed, including an analysis of how both
recipients’ talk relates to it. The resulting analysis may show that the
utterance is functioning to confirm or to clarify, but other functions may
also emerge. The following example from our English L2 data illustrates this
problem of determining function:
(1)
!
C1
D2
What do you like in London?
London?
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
Table 1: Examples of confirmation checks from the research literature
PAULINE FOSTER and AMY SNYDER OHTA
413
(1a)
!
!
C1
D2
C3
D4
What do you like in London?
London? (1.0) Ah, there are a lot of things to do here
A lot?
there are a lot of things to do in your free time.
A lot of shops, and you can go bowling, skating (1.0)
there are cinemas. Where I live, no.
Neither of the indicated utterances above, in lines D2 and C3 appears to
be related to difficulties in comprehension. In D2, by repeating ‘London’
with rising intonation, the speaker provides an item which constitutes a
turn, but functions to allow her time (both the one second pause and the
filled pause Ah) to begin mentally to formulate her answer. Rather than
confirming or clarifying, the most important function of this utterance
may be to buy time. In C3, comprehension of ‘a lot’ does not seem to
be at issue. Rather, the speaker is inviting her interlocutor to continue
speaking. In continuing, the interlocutor provides examples of things she
likes to do in London. In sum, this excerpt is interesting because the
parties appear to have no difficulty speaking to and understanding one
another, (they certainly do not behave as if communication has broken
down) but are using these turns to show their interest and involvement as
conversationalists.
If, as claimed by Gass and Selinker (1994: 209), NfM comprises ‘instances
in conversation when participants need to interrupt the flow of the
conversation in order for both parties to understand what the conversation
is about’ then utterances such as those illustrated above are, in essence, the
very opposite of NfM. They are examples not of conversational partners
stopping to signal problems, but of partners encouraging each other to
continue. The question arises whether interactions characterized by help and
encouragement can be beneficial to SLA, as is claimed for interactions
characterized by clarifying and checking.4
Beyond NfM: considering learner discourse from
a sociocultural perspective
While NfM studies which are typically focused on instances of communication failure, (at least that is what one must conclude from the review of
NfM definitions given above) research examining how learners succeed in
classroom L2 peer interaction has shown that learners help one another as
they interact (Donato 1994; Brooks 1992; Ohta 1995, 1997, 2000a, 2000b,
2001). Assistance, also called scaffolding (Wood et al., 1976), is a feature of
learner talk that is claimed to promote L2 development. This comes about as
learners collaborate to create discourse in the target language. Collaboration
is considered an important part of what happens when learners interact
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
The form of this utterance seems to indicate a straightforward confirmation
check. However, let us consider line 2 in context, as shown below:
414
MEANING AND PEER ASSISTANCE IN SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
with one another. Ohta (2001) found that adult learners of Japanese in
their first two years of language classes assisted each other with a variety
of peer interactive tasks. Research on French immersion students working
in pairs on writing tasks shows how collaboration results in language
related episodes (LREs) ‘where students reflect consciously on the language
they are producing’ (Swain 2001: 53) as they seek and provide assistance
with language issues (Swain and Lapkin 1998, Swain 2001; Lapkin et al.
2002). While studies of NfM have found that problems with lexis most
often trigger negotiation episodes, both Ohta (2001) and Swain (2001)
found that in the contexts they studied—French immersion classes and
university Japanese classes, a great deal of learner collaboration was related
to language form.
The Japanese language learners in Ohta’s (2001) study provided and
received assistance in a variety of ways. For example, they directly asked
for, and received, assistance from each other, they continued utterances
that a partner was having difficulty with, chimed in with suggestions, and
offered and accepted corrections. Assistance was also provided less explicitly,
for example, when a peer waited, providing a partner time to compose an
utterance. Learner assistance to one another often resulted in assisted
performance (Tharp and Gallimore 1991; Ohta 2001)—the creation of
utterances that incorporated the assistance of another. Assistance given
and utilized creates a discourse that is a joint performance, something which
can be seen as an important precursor of individual production.
From a sociocultural perspective, the zone of proximal development (ZPD)
is used to understand how assistance is related to language development.
ZPDs are evident wherever one learner is enabled to do something by
the assistance of another that he or she would not have been able to do
otherwise. Vygotsky (1978) defines the ZPD as ‘the distance between the
actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving
and the level of potential development as determined through problem
solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable
peers’ (Vygotsky 1978: 86). Ohta (1995, 2001) reformulated the ZPD for
L2 learning as ‘the distance between the actual developmental level as
determined by individual linguistic production, and the level of potential
development as determined through language produced collaboratively
with a teacher or peer’ (Ohta 2001: 9) The implications of the ZPD for SLA
are that what the learner can be assisted in doing is soon to be something
that the learner will be able to do without help. From a cognitive perspective, we might say that what is within the zone of proximal development
is within the learner’s reach, but not yet fully incorporated into the
learner’s linguistic system. Language development might occur as this gap
between individual and joint performance is filled and learners develop
increased independence. Rather than occurring through a process of
comprehending i þ 1 input, from this perspective language acquisition
occurs as the learner is enabled to do things with language—in production
PAULINE FOSTER and AMY SNYDER OHTA
415
The present study
Our second task in this paper is to analyse data transcripts of second
language learners engaged with an interactive task. Two lines of inquiry are
pursued by these analyses. Following a cognitive approach, we investigate
quantitatively the frequency with which learners exchanging information
signal communication problems to each other and seek to resolve them
through NfM and modified output (Foster 1998). Following a sociocultural
approach, we examine the data qualitatively to discover how learners
support each other’s learning of the target language (Ohta 1995, 2000a,
2001). Because language form and discourse function do not neatly map
onto each other, our study investigates NfM using definitions where function
guides our coding so that the problems in comprehension or production
that lead to a particular instance of negotiation can be identified.6 Learners
were recorded as they transacted an interactive task, and the transcribed
data were analysed for the features relating to NfM and assistance. Two
research questions were addressed, the first through a quantitative analysis
of the data and the second through a qualitative analysis of the data.
Research questions
1 How often do learners initiate negotiation for meaning during the task,
and how much modified output do they produce as a consequence?
2 In the absence of overtly signalled communication problems, what
interactional processes occur which might be useful for SLA?
Participants
The study comprised two separate data samples.7 The participants in the
first were 20 young adults (19 female, 1 male) from a variety of L1
backgrounds, studying intermediate level English language part-time at an
adult college in London. The participants in the other were 19 American
college students studying Japanese at an American university (12 male,
9 female). They were enrolled in two different sections of a course called
‘Third-year Japanese’. Most were in their third year of Japanese instruction
and had not yet been to Japan. The English L2 learners had all studied
English for at least four years in their home countries before coming
to London and were consequently more experienced and of a higher
proficiency than the Japanese L2 learners.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
as well as reception—that he or she could not have done without a nudge
of assistance5 (Ohta 2001). Assistance does not have the drawbacks of
NfM outlined above. It does not reside in communication breakdown, it
does not threaten face, and can draw a learner’s attention to features of
the L2 morphosyntax, phonology and pragmatics as readily as to lexis.
416
MEANING AND PEER ASSISTANCE IN SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS
Two similar information exchange tasks were used, requiring participants
to interview their partner using a list of prompt questions. The Japanese
L2 learners worked in twos and threes (5 dyads and 3 triads) to ask about
each other’s opinions and plans related to study abroad in Japan. The
English L2 learners worked in dyads to ask their partner’s impressions of
studying in England.
Data collection and coding
For both data sets audio-recordings were made during normal class times
and under normal class conditions, that is simultaneously and in the same
room. The first five minutes of each recording were transcribed and coded.
Possible confirmation checks, clarification requests, and comprehension
checks were initially identified based on turn shape, with coding refined
during an examination of the function of the utterances as illuminated by
the context (the preceding and following turns), and by the interlocutor’s
response. Only utterances which the context and/or interlocutor response
indicated a problem with comprehension were marked as negotiation
moves. Utterances which had the surface shape of negotiation moves but
which had other functions, were coded as a different category. Thus we
coded negotiations in three ways:
1 anything with the surface structure of a negotiation move as defined
by Long (1980);
2 those from (1) which were about verifying understanding or announcing
non-understanding;
3 The rest of (1) i.e. those with the surface structure of a negotiation move
but not clearly related to issues of comprehension;
We coded modified output in two ways:
4 modified in response to (2);
5 modified for any other reason, including (3) and self-initiated repair.
To calculate the incidence of NfM, the data were quantified by division
into AS-units (Foster et al. 2000). These are similar to the T-units and c-units
used in previous NfM research, (Varonis and Gass 1985; Gass and Varonis
1985; Doughty and Pica 1986; Rulon and McCreary 1986; Pica et al. 1989)
but with a much more detailed definition that allows ‘messy’ spoken
data to be coded in a principled way. They divide the spoken word into
syntactically complete units and can be used to calculate how frequently
certain features occur in numbers of speech samples. Extensive discussion
and examples are provided in Foster et al. (2000). Interrater reliability was
over 95 per cent on all categories on a ten per cent sample from both
data sets. Following Ohta (2001), the data were also examined qualitatively
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
Tasks
PAULINE FOSTER and AMY SNYDER OHTA
417
Target
Total AS Comprehension Possible confirmation
language units
checks
checks
Japanese 555
English 803
2
11
Possible clarification
requests
Total
NfM
Non-NfM
Total NfM Non-NfM
13
12
5
6
8
6
24
27
21
11
3
16
NfM ¼ utterances which function to verify understanding or announce non-understanding.
Non-NfM ¼ utterances with the surface shape of a negotiation category—whether confirmation
check or clarification request, which do not function to verify understanding or announce
non-understanding.
to learn what else in the data, besides NfM, might have occurred that is
useful for SLA.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Quantitative analyses
The research question was how often learners initiated negotiation for
meaning during the task which required them to exchange information,
and how much modified output they produced as a consequence. To
calculate the frequency of negotiation moves, the number of AS-units
produced by each participant was counted. For the English L2 data, the
mean was 40 AS-units, with a standard deviation of 10. For the Japanese
L2 data, the mean was 29 AS-units with a standard deviation of 9.3.
This showed that the Japanese L2 learners spoke rather less on average
than the English L2 learners, although with a similar range in the scores.
Regarding the frequency of comprehension checks, Table 2 shows that the
number found in the data was very low. The nineteen Japanese L2 learners
produced a total of merely two between them. The 20 English L2 learners
managed 11, but this can scarcely be called frequent in data comprising
803 AS-units. None of these comprehension checks were ambiguous in
function. For the other two negotiation moves Table 2 shows that, taking
Long’s (1980) definition of the ‘form’ of a confirmation check a total of
13 were identified in the Japanese L2 data and a total of 12 in the English
L2 data. Again, set against the mean number of AS-units we can see that
for individual speakers these too happened infrequently. There were more
frequent clarification requests. Long’s (1980) definition gives us 24 in the
Japanese L2 data and 27 in the English L2 data.
However Table 2 also shows that when a definition is applied which
uses the wider context and interlocutor reaction to identify moves that are
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
Table 2: Total number of comprehension checks, confirmation checks and
clarification requests
418
MEANING AND PEER ASSISTANCE IN SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS
Japanese L2 English L2 data Total
(n ¼ 19)
(n ¼ 20)
(n ¼ 39)
Participants with no NfM moves
5
Participants with no comprehension checks 17
Participants with no confirmation checks
14
Participants with no clarification requests
9
6
13
4
12
11
30
18
21
unambiguously associated with communication problems (such as verifying
understanding or announcing non-understanding) the number of confirmation checks and clarification requests is much lower. Fewer than half of
the possible confirmation checks in the Japanese L2 data and the English
L2 data were found to function as NfM. If we are guided by interlocutor
response, the other half appeared to function as expressions of interest or
surprise, or invitations to continue. As for clarification requests, in the
English L2 data, only 11 of 27 utterances with the form of clarification
requests were found to function as NfM, with the other 16 not indicating
communication problems but rather encouraging the interlocutor to
continue. The picture was very different in the Japanese L2 data where
only 3 of the possible 24 clarification requests performed this function,
the remaining 21 are clearly to do with communication breakdown. The
Japanese L2 learners signalled problems of communication far more often
than their English L2 counterparts did. This could be linked to their relatively
lower proficiency and lesser experience in the target language. But, set
against the mean total of 29 AS-units for each of the 19 Japanese L2
learners, it can be seen that even here clarification requests are not frequent.
In fact, the overall picture for the frequency of negotiation for meaning
across the two data sets shows that signalling communication problems
is uncommon, and for some participants non-existent. As Table 3 shows, 11
of the 39 participants in the study did not negotiate for meaning at all,
and many of the others did so only rarely.
The second part of the first research question asked how much modified
output was produced as a consequence of the negotiation for meaning.
The results are shown in Table 4. Here again, coding was done in two
ways. All semantic, phonological, lexical and morphosyntactic modifications
made by a participant to his or her previous utterance were identified, and
then this total was divided into: (a) those modifications which were
prompted by a communication problem as signalled by an NfM move, and
(b) all other modifications, including self-initiated self-repair, and elaborations prompted by an interlocutor’s expression of encouragement, interest
or surprise.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
Table 3: Non-use of negotiation moves
PAULINE FOSTER and AMY SNYDER OHTA
419
Modified output
Japanese L2
English L2
Total identified
In response to NfM
Other
41
36
6
4
35
32
NfM ¼ verifying understanding or announcing non-understanding.
The results in Table 4 show that although 77 modifications were identified
(41 in the Japanese L2 data and 36 in the English L2 data) only 10 of these
(13 per cent) were prompted by signals of communication problems leading to negotiations for meaning. The large majority were not related to any
interlocutor signal of communication breakdown.
In answer to the first research question, the data show that signalling
communication problems through the NfM is infrequent, the total number
of unambiguous comprehension checks, confirmation checks and clarification checks amounting to only 56 for 39 participants during a five minute
stretch of interaction. Modifications arising from these negotiation moves
is even more infrequent, with only 10 such identified in the data. This
means that 46 instances of unambiguous signals of communication problems
(the vast majority) did not bring about any modifications to the problem
utterance.
It might be said8 that the tasks used in this study, that is a one-way
information exchange, were not conducive to the NfM, and that a more
tightly designed two-way task, where information must be shared carefully
and exactly between participants, would have resulted in more negotiated
interaction and concomitant modified output. But as Table 4 shows,
modified output was being produced by the participants much more in the
absence of negotiation for meaning than in its presence. A tightly designed
two-way information gap task is not a pre-requisite for the production of
modified output. This leads us to the second of our research questions,
to look qualitatively at the stretches of interaction in our data where there
is no negotiation for meaning, and to describe and evaluate what is
happening there.
Qualitative analysis
Definitions and examples
The qualitative analysis found interactional processes related to assistance
(co-construction and other-correction) self-correction and encouragements
to continue. These are defined here, with examples provided.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
Table 4: Total amount of modified output
420
MEANING AND PEER ASSISTANCE IN SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS
!
1
G:
2
Sr:
3
G:
Watashi no uchi:: no uh chikaku de (.) uhh booringu:
Near my house, bowling:
(G’s sentence is correct so far, but is missing the accusative particle
and verb).
o shimasu?
do?
(the verb ‘to bowl’ is ‘booringu o shimasu’)
Hai.
Yes.
(Excerpted from Ohta (2001: 94–5)
Other-correction involves a peer correcting his or her partner. In line 2 of
the following example, Candace corrects her partner by providing a recast
of his incorrectly conjugated adjective (line 1).
!
1
W:
2
C:
3
W:
Tanoshi-te? (.) Tanoshi (.) te
Fun (.) Fun (.)?
(error—tries to use another form, but is wrong)
Tano:shi-katta.
was fun
(this is correct)
Tanoshi-katta desu
It was fun
(Excerpted from Ohta (2001: 96)
Self-correction is defined here as self-initiated, self-repair, and occurs when
learner corrects his or her own utterance without being prompted to do
so by another person. In the following example, Sara replaces the incorrect
particle no with the particle na.
!
1
S:
Kirei no hi- kirei na hito I think.
Beautiful—Beautiful person, I think.
(error: S first picks the wrong particle, but self-corrects)
(Excerpted from Ohta (2001: 102, #16)
Continuers were discussed above with reference to confirmation checks.
They function to express an interlocutor’s interest in what the speaker is
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
Co-construction is the joint creation of an utterance, whether one person
completes what another has begun, or whether various people chime in
to create an utterance. Co-constructions are seen as allowing learners to
participate in forming utterances that they cannot complete individually,
building language skills in the process. In line 2 of the following example,
Sara completes her partner’s utterance.
PAULINE FOSTER and AMY SNYDER OHTA
421
2
M1
V2
M3
I wasn’t so fat before I came to England
fat?
yeah, but now I eat a lot of bread.
V’s use of a continuer provides M with the opportunity to elaborate. The
learners’ expression of interest, through the use of continuers, provides a
supportive environment which encourages increased L2 production.9
The qualitative analysis of the data found ample evidence of the learners
from both data sets giving and receiving assistance in a variety of ways,
using co-constructions, self-corrections, other-corrections and continuers to
build their discourse. One of the ways learners obtained assistance was
simply to ask for it, and when they did so they generally received a helpful
answer. But learner assistance also occurred when it was not explicitly
requested. The learners were sensitive to the difficulties their partners were
experiencing and proactively offered a variety of conversationally-based
assistance, including co-construction, and other-correction. Learners incorporated the assistance received from peers into their own utterances. In the
absence of NfM, learners showed evidence of monitoring their own speech
by engaging in self-correction, as discussed above—and producing modified
output as a result.
Rather than occurring in isolation, strategies were often used in
combination as learners worked to successfully converse with one another.
In Excerpt 3, ‘L’ asks ‘N’ if he plans to study abroad, and the following
conversation ensues:
3
L1:
N2:
L3:
N4:
!
L5:
!
N6:
!
L7:
!
N8:
Ah Ryuugaku suru tsumori desu ka? Itsu desu ka?
Um, do you plan to study abroad? If so, when?
Ah kyoo
Um today
(itsu)
(when)
Ima kara he- ((laughter token)) (2) ninen (1.5)
From now he- ((laughter token)) (2) two years (1.5)
Ato?
Later? (Note: this sounds odd in English but it is correct in Japanese)
Un. Ninen ato
uh huh two years later (this means ‘‘in two years’’)
Sotsugyoo suru a- shita: ato suru ato?
After you graduate (nonpast form) a- graduate (completative aspect)
graduate (nonpast form)?
ah hai. hai. [Sotsugyoo sotsugyoo shita ato.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
saying and to encourage the speaker to go on. Below is an another example
from our data.
422
MEANING AND PEER ASSISTANCE IN SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS
Oh yes. Yes. [after you graduate (completative aspect)
[Soo desu ka
[Oh really
This excerpt includes co-construction, incorporation of what was offered
through co-construction into the initial speaker’s utterance, and selfcorrection. In line 1, L asks a question from the worksheet. N begins to
formulate an answer in line 4, but pauses without finishing the utterance.
In line 5, L engages in co-construction, offering a possible next word for
the utterance left incomplete by N. N incorporates this word into his line 6
utterance. L asks a follow-up question, ‘after you graduate?’ in line 7, and
engages in self-correction, but shows a lack of certainty of whether or not
to use a completative aspect in the utterance. In fact, after self-correcting
to the appropriate form, the student reverts to the incorrect form. In line 8,
N’s response includes the correct form, which provides confirmation to L.
In this example, we see how co-construction, incorporation of language
offered by a peer, and self-correction all occur in a short span of conversation. Rather than seeing communication breakdown accompanied
by NfM moves, we see the students assisting each other in building a
conversation in Japanese.
Learners offered correct words and forms to one another when a partner
hesitantly used incorrect language. Hesitation may be seen as an indirect
request for assistance. Excerpt 4 from our ESL data provides an example:
4
J1:
!
K2:
J3:
I like the transport here because it’s very practical, and it’s very ra- (2.5)
rapidly (1.0)
fast
it’s very fast
Here, J has apparent difficulty choosing an appropriate word to describe
public transportation in the UK. J’s difficulty is evidenced by the pause as
the word is formulated. This pause may signal an implicit request to K for
assistance. In response, K offers a different (and more appropriate) lexical
item, ‘fast’, which J then incorporates into his line 3 utterance. Othercorrections were a notable feature in our data, providing a useful resource to
a struggling peer.
Excerpt 5 provides further examples of assistance, showing an explicit
request for assistance and how that request resulted in provision of the
correct form, which the speaker repeated. In this example, the three learners
are talking about how a homestay is a good thing if one gets a good host
family:
5
E1:
Hehehe. Ii kazoku dattara ii desu. Moshi kazoku ga
dame dattara
Hehehe. If you have a good family then it’s a good thing. But if you
have a bad family
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
L9:
PAULINE FOSTER and AMY SNYDER OHTA
J3:
E4:
I5:
J6:
E7:
J8:
E9:
I10:
dame desu.
then it’s no good
Un.
yeah.
Exactly desu.
Exactly COP
Oh. ee aa kazoku no yoo na (.) Does that work? Depending
on family?
Oh. uh uh like a family (.) Does that work? Depending on family?
ah ah ah
Yes.
Yotei? yote? Kazoku kazoku ni yoote:.
(J attempts to say ‘‘Kazoku ni yotte’’ ‘‘depending on the family’’
but mispronounces the verb)
Kazoku ni yotte.
Depending on the family (correct)
Kazoku ni yotte
Depending on the family
The excerpt begins with an example of co-construction as I completes E’s
line 1 utterance in line 2. Then, in line 5, I attempts to say ‘depending on
family’. His utterance is incorrect and he shows his uncertainty both by
using fillers (‘ee aa’) and by asking the others about it and providing an
English translation of what he is trying to say in Japanese. As J appears to
think over the question in line 6, E agrees with I; however, it appears that
E is agreeing that it all depends on the family rather than responding to
I’s question about the form.10 Then, J offers an answer to I’s question that
presents another incorrect form that is, however, nearly correct. Then E, in
line 9, other-corrects J’s answer, giving the correct form. In the final line of
the excerpt, I repeats the form. That E knows the correct form, even
pronouncing the geminate correction, is evidence that his line 6 agreement
was with the content of I’s utterance ‘depending on family’. Even though
E appears to be meaning-oriented in his initial response to I, he does provide
the correct form when that offered by J is incorrect.
While other-correction is an important resource for learners in our data,
self-correction and modification of learners’ own utterances were more
common than other-correction. These learners of Japanese and English
show the same preference for self-correction that is usual in non-pedagogical
discourse (Schegloff et al. 1977). Here are some examples of self-repair:
(a)
(b)
L:
M:
(c)
H:
I had no problem er I haven’t had problems.
I only know- I only knew how to read when I was- after the first
year of being in school
Ryuugaku shimasu shitai desu.
I will study abroad I want to study abroad.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
I2:
423
424
MEANING AND PEER ASSISTANCE IN SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS
M1:
J2:
M3:
Watashi wa nihon ni ikitara tour guide o shiIf I go to Japan (wrong verb form) I’ll be a tour guide
ah sokka
Oh really
Nihon ni ittara.
If I go to Japan (correct verb form)
Learner assistance and self-correction related to both expression and
comprehension of form and meaning. In fact, we found the learners to be
quite form-oriented in both their assistance and their self-correction, as
shown in the examples above.
There were differences between the English and Japanese data in terms
of the nature of the interaction that transpired. Compared to the English
language learners, the Japanese language learners were of lower proficiency
and had more difficulty creating utterances in the language. In the
quantitative analysis, we found that the Japanese learners’ utterances
included more NfM. Qualitatively, we also found greater utilization of
mutual assistance. In other words, more ZPDs were created; there were more
places in the data where learners relied on one another in order to proceed.
As assessed by the extent to which the English language learners
collaborated or relied upon one another for assistance, it seems that the
English language learners found their conversational task to be easier. Their
interactions provided opportunities for displays of supportive interest and
self-correction, and, as already noted in the quantitative analysis, they
produced a great deal of modified output.
While NfM has been prioritized as a key locus of SLA, our data show that
when NfM is absent, there is much occurring which should promote
language acquisition and that the learners we studied pool their resources
to promote each other’s language development. For understanding SLA,
a discovery approach to classroom talk seems useful in understanding
the broader range of what is happening and how that might work to help
or hinder language learning.
CONCLUSION
We find that overtly signalled communication breakdowns, as typified by
the classic ‘three Cs’, are not the norm in our data, but are a subset of a
larger variety of conversational moves learners make in the process of talking
with one another and assisting one another with the interactive task at
hand. We see scarcely any evidence at all of learners ‘interrupting the flow’
of the interaction in order to verify what their conversation is about
(Gass and Selinker 1994: 209). But we do see evidence of learners repairing
and rewording their own utterances, and assisting each other to both find
the right form and to express meaning. We see evidence of learners
supporting each other, frequently expressing interest in what their
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
(d)
PAULINE FOSTER and AMY SNYDER OHTA
425
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
interlocutor is saying and giving encouragement to continue. We regard this
as a sign of the success these learners have in using the target language
in these classes. They are sharing their meanings while monitoring and
modifying their own and each other’s utterances, minimizing overt
communication breakdowns, and the accompanying frustration. To take a
cognitive perspective, we might say that the frequency of these attempts
to modify utterances are signs that the learners are indeed focusing on form
and are not content to let their interlanguage fossilize comfortably. From a
sociocultural perspective we might prefer to say that in such exchanges more
ZPDs were created—more places in the data where learners needed to rely
on one another in order to proceed. For both approaches the infrequency of
negotiations for meaning can be explained either by the fact that learners
mostly understood each other very well, or as in Foster (1998), because they
chose to avoid potentially face-threatening and discouraging detours from
the subject of the interaction.
We have not sought to merge a cognitive view of SLA with a sociocultural
one, nor to show one as superior to the other. Rather, our goal has been
collaboratively to apply our differing perspectives and research techniques
to the same data set in order to come to a better understanding of the
opportunities for second language development in classroom L2 interaction.
We believe that in this way a fuller picture emerges of the potential of
interactive language learning and that our combined analysis illuminates
more in the data than either approach would do on its own. The interactive
task is revealed here as a social event to which learners bring their instinct
to be co-operative and helpful, and to express a natural human interest
in what their interlocutor is saying. We also see that this entails learners
paying attention to target language forms, in both their own output and
that of their interlocutor, and not only at rare moments of communication
breakdown but also at moments when learners offer help and encouragement. One may choose to find within such moments examples of a focus-onform, or a language related episode, or a ZPD, but all are important language
learning opportunities.
To sum up we would make four main points.
First, it is not a straightforward business to identify NfM moves and a
qualitative approach to the definitions needs to be adopted by looking at
the interaction in a wider context than just the immediately adjacent turns,
and looking especially at the interlocutor’s interpretation of an utterance
with the surface shape of a negotiation move. Did the interlocutor think it
was a signal of a language problem, a signal to stop and confirm or clarify?
Or was it taken as an invitation to continue, to expand, to explain? Careful
qualitative analysis is necessary prior to quantitative analysis of discourse
data (Schegloff 1993). Stimulated recall (Gass and Mackey 2000) would
provide an avenue for exploring what a speaker understood, did not
understand, or may have intended by a particular utterance.11 Indeed recent
research has effectively used this technique to better understand contextual
426
MEANING AND PEER ASSISTANCE IN SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Martin Bygate, Gabi Kasper and four anonymous reviewers for
their valuable comments on previous drafts of this paper.
NOTES
1 Researchers taking this sort of
perspective may use terms such as
sociocultural theory (SCT), activity
theory, Vygotskian psycholinguistics,
or language socialization to indicate
their theoretical framework. These
terms are not interchangeable, but
generally share a common foundation
in the work of Vygotsky and his
students.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
factors and human relationships and their impact on classroom language
learning (Morris and Tarone 2003).
Secondly, although NfM and attendant modified output is very infrequent
in tasks such as the discussion/interview tasks we used, it would not be true
to say that, therefore, the task design is not a good one for promoting SLA.
A developmentally appropriate topic and task, a desire to express oneself,
a supportive listener, a friendly and non-face-threatening environment in
which to monitor one’s own output—these are likely ingredients of a task
that is good for promoting progress in the target language, whether the
information exchange is one way, two way, required, optional, or any other
task type label. Our study has shown that learners can take plenty of
opportunities to modify their output and focus on form without the
requirement to exchange information exactly or negotiate for meaning.
Thirdly, we would suggest that if meanings are generally clear and
communication is supportive and unproblematic, as it generally was for
both the Japanese and English language learners, it is arguable that learners
could thus have spare attention to give to form, both of their own and
of their partners’ language. It is possible, perhaps likely, that a learner in a
successful interaction is able and willing to focus on form without having
first to be shunted into a communication problem. Being encouraged to
go on because someone has understood and wants to hear could benefit
target language progress just as much as NfM.
Lastly, we do not claim that NfM is unimportant. It can and does happen
when communication problems inevitably arise. But far from being central
to SLA, we would claim it represents just one of the many ways language
development is advanced through interaction. Social interactive processes
are important, whether understood from a cognitive perspective as triggering
acquisition in the brain, or from a sociocultural perspective as the embodiment of the language development in process. Interactional processes
including negotiation for meaning and various kinds of peer assistance and
repair are among the many ways learners gain access to the language being
learned.
Revised version received October 2004
PAULINE FOSTER and AMY SNYDER OHTA
purpose was to investigate overtly
signalled NfM.
7 We would stress these groups are
data samples and not part of a
controlled experimental setup. As
we are not testing hypotheses and
thus not using control and experimental groupings, the differences in
proficiency, L1, target language, task
details and group numbers do not
undermine the validity of our observations. Our samples are from two
classrooms in which communicative
language tasks are often used, and
we are looking to see what kinds of
learning opportunities actually arise,
compared to those which we might
expect to arise.
8 Indeed a reviewer has raised this
objection: that our task design was
not tight enough and a two-way
required
information
exchange
would have been a better choice.
But our transcripts make it clear that
modified output does not have to be
engineered through task design.
9 A reviewer raises the possibility that
this is NfM. However, the interlocutor does not respond as if it were a
communication problem but as an
invitation to elaborate. And surely
when a woman says ‘I wasn’t so fat
before’ and the interlocutor replies
‘fat?’ with a rising and surprised
intonation, it is a conventional and
polite rejection of her description of
herself as overweight. (At least
among the women we know.)
10 A reviewer felt that E, in line 7,
could just as likely have been agreeing with the form of line 5. This
is unlikely since it is E who provided
the correct form in line 9. E’s
Japanese is highly fluent and grammatical compared to the other
students in the data set. Both specifically (evidence that E knows the
form (line 9)) and in general, the data
provide evidence of E’s linguistic
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/article/26/3/402/181415 by Columbia University in the City of New York user on 01 December 2020
2 Sociocultural approaches reject dichotomies such as Krashen’s acquisition/
learning distinction, so here ‘learning’
is not meant to contrast with ‘acquisition’. In this paper, the terms
acquisition, learning and development
are all used to refer to a learner’s
progress with the language being
learned.
3 While discussing NfM we will primarily use the terminology traditionally
used in cognitive SLA research. While
socioculturally-oriented L2 researchers
would dispute NfM on the basis of
its model of communication (input!
processing!output), here we accept
NfM research on its own terms and
discuss it accordingly.
4 One reviewer has questioned our
critical analysis of confirmation checks,
saying that no researcher would
possibly make the mistake of considering a continuer to be a confirmation
check. However, the authors have
talked with both researchers and
graduate students who, following
two-line examples given in previous
research, have coded turns like the
continuers in Excerpt 1 as NfM.
5 The ZPD is not equivalent to i þ 1.
See Dunn and Lantolf (1998) and
Kinginger (2001) for a thorough
discussion of the relationship between
these two constructs.
6 This is not to say that unsignalled
communication breakdowns are not
occurring. Foster (1998) points out
that some participants appeared loathe
to signal communication problems
and were prepared to let them pass.
The only way to illuminate these is
to use stimulated recall (Gass and
Mackey 2000), having students listen
to the audiotapes and indicate places
where they had not understood the
interlocutor but had not made any
check or request. This procedure was
beyond the scope of this study, whose
427
428
MEANING AND PEER ASSISTANCE IN SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS
is most accurate when the post-task
interview is immediate. As such, it
would be difficult to use for a
classroom study. See Gass and
Mackey (2000) for a in-depth treatment of the applications and benefits
of stimulated recall methodology.
REFERENCES
Aston, G. 1986. ‘Troubleshooting interaction
with learners: the more the merrier?’ Applied
Linguistics 7: 128–43.
Braidi, S. 2002. ‘Re-examining the role of recasts
in native speaker/nonnative speaker interactions,’ Language Learning 52/1: 1–42.
Brooks, F. 1992. ‘Spanish L2 learners talking to
one another through a jigsaw task,’ Canadian
Modern Language Review 48: 696–717.
Donato, R. 1994. ‘Collective scaffolding in second
language acquisition’ in J. P. Lantolf, and
G. Appel (eds): Vygotskian Approaches to Second
Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Doughty, C. and T. Pica. 1986. ‘Information
gap tasks: Do they facilitate second language
acquisition?’ TESOL Quarterly 20: 305–25.
Doughty, C. and E. Varela. 1998. ‘Communicative focus on form’ in C. Doughty, and
J. Williams (eds): Focus on Form in Classroom
Second
Language
Acquisition.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 114–38.
Dunn, W. E. and J. P. Lantolf. 1998. ‘Vygotsky’s
zone of proximal development and Krashen’s
i þ 1: Incommensurable constructs; incommensurable theories’ Language Learning 48/3:
411–42.
Ellis, R. 1999. Learning a Second Language Through
Interaction. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ellis, R., H. Basturkmen, and S. Loewen. 2001.
‘Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom,’
TESOL Quarterly 35/3: 407–32.
Foster, P. 1998. ‘A classroom perspective on
the negotiation of meaning,’ Applied Linguistics
19/1: 1–23.
Foster, P., A. Tonkyn, and G. Wigglesworth.
2000. ‘A unit for all reasons: The analysis of
spoken interaction,’ Applied Lingu…
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Achiever Papers is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Dissertation Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, if anything is unclear, you may always chat with us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download