No description available.

One issue that faces second language (L2) teachers when they use task-based language teaching (TBLT) is how they should integrate focus on form into goal-oriented, meaning-focused tasks. This issue is particularly relevant to Japanese secondary school teachers, who need to prepare students for entrance examinations that heavily emphasize grammar. Researchers have proposed various ways to address this issue, one of which is shifting task modality from speaking to writing (Richards, 2002; Skehan, 1998). Studies have shown that learners engage in negotiation of form (i.e., an interactional sequence in which learners attempt to resolve a linguistic problem in their output) more frequently when they are required to produce written output (Adams, 2006; Niu, 2009). Another way of promoting focus on form during task-based interaction is to have learners use their first language (L1) to negotiate forms. Research has demonstrated that the use of metalanguage enables learners to discuss forms in detail and helps them maintain their attention on the forms (Fortune, 2005; Fortune & Thorp, 2001). Learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) typically develop explicit knowledge of English through the medium of L1 metalanguage. Thus, it is assumed that EFL learners will negotiate forms more frequently and effectively if teachers allow them to speak their L1 during task work. This study investigated the effectiveness of the two manipulations—shifting production modality to writing and having learners use their L1—in facilitating negotiation of form during task work. First-year university students in two EFL classes at a university in Tokyo participated in two data collection sessions. In the first session, both classes completed a picture story jigsaw task and then wrote the story in pairs. In the second session, both classes completed another picture story jigsaw task and then orally narrated the story in pairs. In both sessions, one class was instructed to speak English only during the post-task while the other class was allowed to speak their L1 (Japanese). Students’ interactions were transcribed, and language-related episodes (LREs) were identified in the transcripts. LREs refer to interactional sequences in which the learners question or correct the use of an L2 item in their own or each other’s utterance (Swain & Lapkin, 1998; Williams, 1999). When all LREs were identified, they were classified according to focus, outcome, and L1 use. Then, to investigate the effect of modality, the writing post-task and the speaking post-task were compared in terms of the frequency, focus, and outcome of LREs. To investigate the effect of L1 use, the English-only (EO) class and the English/Japanese (EJ) class were compared in terms of the frequency, focus, and outcome of LREs. In addition, to study the effect of L1 use further, the texts that students composed in pairs on the writing post-task were analyzed, and the two classes were compared in terms of the accuracy of the compositions and types of errors they made. Finally, LREs in which students used Japanese (L1 Use) and LREs in which they used English exclusively (L2 Only) were compared in terms of metalanguage use and length. The comparison between the two post-tasks showed that the writing post-task generated significantly more LREs than the speaking post-task, and this result was consistent for both classes. Regarding the focus and outcome of LREs, significant differences between the two modes were found only with the EJ class. On the writing post-task, EJ pairs focused on lexis, grammar, and discourse almost evenly and resolved 70-80% of LREs successfully. On the speaking post-task, however, they focused predominantly on lexis and resolved less than 50% of LREs successfully. The comparison between the two classes revealed that the EO class generated significantly more LREs than the EJ class on both post-tasks. For the focus and outcome of LREs, significant differences between the two classes were found for the speaking post-task, but not for the writing post-task. On the speaking post-task, EO pairs focused equally on lexis and grammar and resolved about 80% of LREs successfully, while EJ pairs focused mostly on lexis and resolved only 50% of LREs successfully. As for the compositions they wrote, the study found no significant difference between the two classes, either in terms of accuracy or error types. The comparison between LREs in the two L1 use categories revealed that students used metalanguage in only 35% of LREs in the L2 Only category. This made a clear contrast to LREs in the L1 Use category. In this study, all L1 utterances in LREs were regarded as metalanguage use. Thus, all LREs in the L1 Use category contained, by definition, at least one instance of metalanguage use. The comparison also indicated that LREs in the L1 Use category were significantly longer than LREs in the L2 Only category. In the L1 Use category, LREs that contained L1 and L2 metalanguage use were significantly longer than those that only contained L1 metalanguage use. In the L2 Only category, LREs that contained L2 metalanguage use were significantly longer than those that contained no metalanguage use. However, there was no significant difference in length between LREs that only contained L1 metalanguage use and those that only contained L2 metalanguage use. The study demonstrates that shifting modality from speaking to writing in the post-task stage is an effective means to incorporate focus on form into task cycles. Researchers argue that written production is more conducive to learning than oral production because forms are visually salient and remain permanently (Adams, 2006; Swain & Lapkin, 2001; Williams, 2012). The results imply that, on collaborative writing tasks, these features of writing help learners notice problems in their output and initiate negotiation to resolve them. As for L1 use, the study shows that allowing learners to use the L1 can reduce, rather than increase, the opportunity for focus on form. When learners have their L1 available, they might use it for addressing non-linguistic issues that they cannot easily handle in the L2, such as working out story details and identifying contents of pictures. As a result, they might negotiate forms less frequently. The study also indicates that making the L1 available while learners write together does not necessarily help them produce more accurate texts. This means that the L1 has some impact on the frequency, focus, and outcome of negotiation, but this impact might not be so strong as to affect the task product. Thus, learners in the study negotiated forms less frequently when they were allowed to speak the L1, and this might be because the L1 directed their attention to non-linguistic aspects of the task. Another explanation for this finding is that the L1 enabled learners to discuss one form longer, and this made it difficult for them to negotiate many forms in a given time. The latter explanation was supported by the comparison between the two L1 use categories: LREs in the L1 Use category were significantly longer than LREs in the L2 Only category. Closer examination of individual LREs in the two categories revealed that the difference in length came from differences in metalanguage use. By definition, all LREs in the L1 Use category contained at least one instance of L1 metalanguage use. The analysis revealed that L1 metalanguage in these LREs tended to involve Technical Metalanguage, such as grammatical terms, grammatical rules, and word definitions, and using Technical Metalanguage, learners often justified their choices or compared alternative candidates. In contrast, only 35% of LREs in the L2 Only category contained any use of L2 metalanguage, and the L2 metalanguage mostly consisted of simple response tokens such as yes and OK. Fortune (2005) and Fortune and Thorp (2001) emphasized the importance of Technical Metalanguage in negotiation of form. They argued that this type of metalanguage enables learners to articulate their explicit knowledge and discuss forms in detail, and thereby helps them engage in negotiation deeply. This study provides support to their argument and has shown that an important role of the L1 in EFL learners’ negotiation of form is to facilitate the use of Technical Metalanguage. Using L1 Technical Metalanguage, EFL learners can negotiate individual forms at length and maintain their attention on the forms. L1 Technical Metalanguage also helps them verbalize their explicit knowledge and share it with their peers. Through these, they can resolve linguistic problems collaboratively and scaffold each other’s learning. / Teaching & Learning

This present study investigates the development of second language (L2) Chinese learners’ writing by 1) subjective ratings of essay quality, 2) a battery of objective measures representing the general syntactic complexity as well as specific syntactic features, and 3) the sources of verb phrase complexity used by learners of different institutional levels. This study first compares the subjective ratings of the essays written by learners across four institutional levels and then uses Cumulative Linked Model to examine the contribution of the objective measures of linguistic features to the essay ratings. This study further identifies a number of sources used by learners to construct complex verb phrases, which is an important contributor of the essay rating, and compares the amount of usages by learners at different institutional levels. The purpose of the study is to better understand L2 Chinese learners’ syntactic development in writing from multi-dimensional perspectives, and to identify the most crucial elements that determine the quality of writing. This study recruits 105 L2 Chinese college learners to write a narrative essay and an argumentative essay according to the prompts. Each of the writing sample is rated by two independent raters according to the holistic ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, as well as the analytic rubric which was adapted from the ESL Composition Profile for this study. The derivation of syntactic complexity measures was based on the rank scales of lexicogrammar in Systemic Functional Linguistics (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014), involving 12 features at the levels of clause complex, clause, and verb phrase, some of which represent constructions unique to Chinese. A series of statistical tests, including Kruskal-Wallis tests, Dunn’ tests, Spearman’ correlation tests, and CLM are performed to answer that research questions. The findings show that 1) learners’ overall writing quality measured by holistic and analytic ratings do not show significant differences across the first several academic years; 2) higher-level learners are more heterogeneous in writing ability than lower-level learners; 3) phrasal complexity contributes more to the essay quality than clausal complexity; 4) syntactic complexity features that learners develop fastest hardly overlap with those that contribute most to the essay rating; 5) complex verbal phrases come from 10 different sources and the composition of complex verbal phrases remain stable across the groups; and 6) essay types makes significant differences in terms of holistic and analytic ratings, use of syntactic complexity features, as well as their contribution to the essay ratings. From the pedagogical view, this study points out that instruction should focus more on complexity at the phrasal level, especially nominalization and complex verb phrases, that play a more important role to determine the writing quality. Some of the current focus in instruction may not necessarily lead to better quality or higher proficiency in Chinese writing.

This dissertation investigates how L2 speakers’ assessment of their own pronunciation compares to the assessment of these speakers’ pronunciation by different types of listeners. Study 1 investigated the associations between L2 speakers’ pronunciation self-assessment and the assessment by L1 listeners. Eighty-two L2 English speakers performed a picture narrative task and rated their own speech. These speech samples were also rated by eight inexperienced L1 English listeners. Pearson correlation and paired t-test analyses revealed that the speakers’ self-assessment was significantly different from L1 English listeners’ assessment, and that poor performers overestimated their performance while top performers underestimated it. Study 2 investigated the associations between L2 speakers’ pronunciation self-assessment and the assessment by L1 listeners, L2 listeners who shared an L1 with the speakers, and L2 listeners who did not share an L1 with the speakers. Forty-one L1 Mandarin speakers performed a picture narrative task in English and rated their own pronunciation. These speech samples were also rated by L1 English listeners, L1 Mandarin listeners, and L1 mixed listeners. Pearson correlation and paired t-test analyses revealed that the alignment between self- and other-assessment varied according to the L1 background of the listeners and the construct under evaluation. Study 3 investigated if L2 listeners had an advantage over L1 listeners at comprehending L2 speech, and if the L1 background and proficiency level of the L2 speakers and listeners affected this potential advantage. Forty-one Mandarin-accented English speech samples from a picture narrative task were rated for comprehensibility by three groups of listeners – L1 English listeners, L1 Mandarin listeners, and L1 mixed listeners. Paired t-test analyses revealed that L1 Mandarin listeners perceived the Mandarin-accented speech to be more comprehensible than the L1 English listeners did, and this benefit was observed with three different proficiency combinations when proficiency was taken into consideration. Although overall the L1 mixed listeners did not perceive the Mandarin-accented speech to be more comprehensible than the L1 English listeners did, when proficiency was taken into consideration, the picture was more complex – while a comprehensibility benefit was observed with one specific proficiency combination, a comprehensibility detriment was observed with a different proficiency pairing.

Learners' motivation has a significant influence on French as a second language teaching and learning (Ryan & Deci, 2020; Flynn, 2018; Zhao, 2015; Gardner, 2001). Recently, there has been an issue of motivation to learn and teach French as a second language and much research on recruitment and retention issues in Canada and abroad (Smith et al. 2022; Masson et al. 2019; Gordon, 2017). Motivation can be impacted by positive and negative feelings related to minority language learning, which are often more about the speaker and the speech community learners belong to, than the language itself (Mahootian, 2020). Researchers have examined students' motivation and success in FSL learning especially in K-12 immersion context, but there has also been an increase in focusing on teachers' perspectives in recent times (Arnott, 2017). The aim of this paper is to examine the motivational orientation in teaching and learning French as a second language in a minority context. This qualitative study used semi-structured interview to investigate a group of adult learners' motivation in learning French as a second language. Specifically, this research examined teachers who studied French and maintained their motivation to continue to teach French as a second language in an Anglo-dominant context. A semi- structured interview allowed for a richly detailed understanding of teachers' account of their experiences and practices. The findings presented demonstrate the positive influence that parents, teachers, and relevant extracurricular experiences have on students' decision to continue their studies in FSL, as well as the transformations of the students' identity formation and investment which are enhanced through learning French as a second language, the bilingual environment which surrounds it, and students' activities. Recommendations are made to help encourage and promote the learning and teaching of FSL, develop the oral skills of learners and the provision of a better linguistic learning environment that fosters academic success.

No description available.

No description available.

This longitudinal study used qualitative and quantitative methods to explore the development of aspects of the intercultural competence (ICC) of Saudi learners of English as a second language in a study abroad (SA) context based on Deardorff's (2004) ICC model. It also examined students' development of Saudis' perceptions of the home and host cultures at the beginning of SA and after four months. Moreover, this study explored the relationship between ICC and second language proficiency. This study found no substantial change in ICC-related attributes over four months of studying abroad. Results also showed an overall agreement in ICC assessment between the teachers and the students. As far as perceptions of members of the Saudi and US cultures are concerned in the second study, the findings suggested that the Saudi SA students continued to use their home frame of reference even after four months of study in the US and that the national stereotypes persisted. In these results, US Americans are perceived to be work-oriented, whereas Saudis are relationship-oriented. The findings of the third study demonstrated that SA students' perceived gains with regard to skills of speaking, listening, reading, grammar, and vocabulary were significantly lower than their expectations at the beginning of the program and that their expectations were relatively low for culture learning. Moreover, no significant relationship was found between SA students' L2 usage patterns and L2 learning, nor between L2 usage patterns and C2 learning. However, the level of L2 proficiency upon entry into the SA program indicated a strong correlation with perceived gains in L2 learning. Interestingly, no relationship was found between ICC and L2 learning, nor between ICC and C2 learning.

Idag är en stor andel av eleverna i svensk skola flerspråkiga. Lärarna måste alltså räkna med att eleverna i klassen behärskar svenska språket i varierande grad. Forskning visar att för att andraspråkselever ska få samma chans som förstaspråkselever att mötas utifrån sina förutsättningar och behov, krävs att alla lärare har kunskaper om hur andraspråksutveckling går till och hur man kan planera och genomföra undervisning som är samtidigt språkutvecklande och kunskapsutvecklande. Men lärarutbildningen prioriterar inte dessa ämnen. Inte heller finns det några formella krav på att grundlärare ska ha dessa kunskaper.   Genom intervjuer med två lärare i årskurs tre undersöks i föreliggande studie hur stor betydelse lärarnas eget driv har för att skapa förutsättningar för en framgångsrik språk- och kunskapsutveckling för andraspråkselever. Resultatet visar att lärarnas eget intresse och engagemang har en nyckelroll i detta. / A large percentage of students in Swedish schools today are multilingual. Consequently teachers must expect varying degrees of Swedish language proficiency of the students in the classroom. Research shows that in order to give second language students the same chance of being met on the basis of their capacities and needs as students with Swedish as their first language have, it is important that all teachers have knowledge of second language development as well as of educational planning and implementation that is developing both language and subject-matter knowledge. Regardless of this finding the teacher education programme does not prioritize these subjects; nor are there any formal requirements that primary school teachers should have these skill sets.   In this study interviews were conducted with two third grade teachers to probe the significance of the teacher's own enthusiasm in creating optimal conditions for the development of the student's language skills and learning. The results show that the teachers' own interest and commitment play a key role in this matter.

Integrated writing tasks that combine reading, listening, and writing have become increasingly popular in assessing academic writing. These tasks are seen to offer more authenticity, improve fairness, and provide positive washback effects of the test on learning and teaching of English around the globe. However, the integrated nature of these tasks can pose some issues, such as construct-related validity and verbatim source use. Given that the inferences made from test scores depend upon the construct of the measure, it is important to have a working knowledge of how strategies are used on integrated writing tests as part of the process of construct validation. This study investigates the relationship between second language writers’ strategy use and performance on an integrated reading-listening-writing test using structural equation modeling and qualitative approaches. Data were collected from 161 non-native English-speaking students. The students first took an integrated reading-listening-writing test and followed by a strategy inventory on how they thought while completing the test. Twenty students, ten in the high-performance group and ten in the low-performance group, participated in a retrospective interview. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to identify the clusters of items based on three hypothetical factors: Rhetorical, Self-Regulatory, and Test-Wiseness Strategy Use. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was then utilized to test the hypothetical relations between observed and latent variables. Subsequently, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to model the relationship between students’ self-reported strategy use and their test performance. The data collected from retrospective interviews, an open-ended questionnaire, and planning sheets were analyzed to triangulate quantitative results and provide supplementary information in interpreting the quantitative data. The study illuminates the nature of integrated writing strategy use, the nature of integrated writing performance, and the relationship between strategy use and performance on an integrated reading-listening-writing test. The results of the study have implications for second language writing assessment and instruction as well as theory in second language academic writing. / text