Exploring the role of modality: L2-heritage learner interactions in the Spanish language classroom

1
Exploring the role of modality L2-heritage
learner interactions in the Spanish language
classroom

• Melissa A. Bowles
• bowlesm_at_illinois.edu
• University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
• Summer Heritage Language Research Institute June
  22-26, 2009

2
1. Theoretical background

• Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996)
  conversational interaction facilitates L2
  development
• Claims consistently supported by SLA research
• Both short-term and long-term gains from
  conversational interaction with native speakers
  (Mackey Goo, 2007)

3
2. Learner-learner interactions

• Most studies have examined benefits for NS-NNS
  interactions, but what about foreign language
  classrooms?
• NNS-NNS interactions far more frequent than
  NS-NNS due to student/teacher ratio
• Many opportunities also occur in NNS-NNS
  interactions (Adams, 2007 García-Mayo Pica,
  2000 Gass Varonis, 1985 Mackey, Oliver,
  Leeman, 2003 Pica, Lincoln-Porter, Paninos,
  Linnell, 1996)

4

• Specifically, learners provide each other
• comprehensible input
• opportunities to negotiate for meaning
• opportunities to produce modified output

5
Differences between NS-NNS and NNS-NNS
interactions

• But NNS-NNS and NS-NNS interactions are not equal
  in all ways
• (-) Learners do not always provide each other
  targetlike input (errors) (Adams, 2007)
• () Learners produce more output with NNS than
  with NS (Adams, 2007 Pica et al., 1996)

6

• Negotiation between learners more variable than
  with NS
• Deals with lexicon more frequently than
  morphosyntax (Buckwalter, 2001 García-Mayo
  Pica, 2000 Williams, 1999)
• Less consistent provision of feedback than in
  teacher-student interactions (Toth, 2008)

7
3. Language-related episodes (LREs)

• One benefit of interaction is that it
• provides learners an opportunity to attend to
  issues of linguistic form while engaging in
  meaningful communication
• Occasions when learners attend to form during
  interaction are referred to as form-focused
  episodes (FFEs) or language-related episodes
  (LREs)

8

• LREs defined
• all interaction in which learners draw attention
  to form, that is, those that focus on form in the
  context of meaningful interaction as well as
  those that are set apart from such communication
  and simply revolve around questions of form
  itself (Williams, 1999 595)

9
Frequency/occurrence of LREs

• LREs occur frequently in classroom contexts
  (Ellis, Basturkmen, Loewen, 2001a, 2001b
  Loewen, 2003, 2004 Swain Lapkin, 1998, 2001,
  2002 Williams, 1999, 2001) and are investigated
  as a site where L2 learning/development can occur

10
Instructional context

• Spanish language classrooms in the US
• Historically instruction focused on
  monolingually-raised English speakers (Valdés,
  2006)
• Currently most Spanish foreign language classes
  enroll both L1 English speakers and heritage
  speakers of Spanish

11

• A heritage learner is
• a student who is raised in a home where a
  non-English language is spoken, who speaks or
  merely understands the heritage language, and who
  is to some degree bilingual in English and the
  heritage language (Valdés, 2001 1).

12

• Heritage learners do not comprise a homogenous
  group (Kanno, Hasegawa, Ikeda, Ito Long, 2008)
• Range of abilities in English and in Spanish
• Emphasis on the importance of describing the
  characteristics of this sample of learners

13
Linguistic profile of heritage learners

• Phonetic advantage over L2 learners even the
  least proficient speakers are often perceived to
  have a native-like accent (Polinsky Kagan,
  2007)

14

• Grammatical competence
• Incomplete acquisition of some aspects of
  morphosyntax
• Gender agreement (Montrul, Foote, Perpiñán,
  2008 Polinsky, 2006)
• Tense/aspect/mood (Lynch, 1999 Montrul, 2002,
  2007 Pereltsvaig, 2008 Polinsky, 1997, 2006
  Silva-Corvalán, 1994)
• Differential Object Marking (Montrul Bowles,
  2008)
• Many gaps in heritage learners morphosyntactic
  knowledge are also problem areas for L2 learners
  of Spanish (Montrul, Foote, Perpiñán, 2008)

15

• Despite calls for special Spanish for Native
  Speaker classes, only 18 of colleges have
  separate tracks for L2 and heritage learners
  (Ingold, Rivers, Tesser, Ashby, 2002)
• SoIn the majority of cases, L2 and heritage
  learners are enrolled in the same classes

16

• Despite this instructional reality, just one
  study on paired interactions of L2-HL learners
  exists (Blake Zyzik, 2003)
• Examined chat-based interactions of 11 HL-L2
  pairs engaged in a jigsaw task
• Laboratory-based study with learners at all
  different proficiency levels who did not know
  each other prior to study

17

• Descriptive in nature (no inferential statistics)
• HL learners assisted partners more than the
  reverse greater linguistic benefits for L2
  learners
• HL learners did report benefiting from
  interacting with L2 learners, where they served
  as a respected source of information

18
Study Goals

• To explore the interactions of mixed L2-HL pairs
  in Spanish language classrooms using the
  framework of the Interaction Hypothesis
• Are the benefits one-sided in these mixed
  interactions?

19
Research Questions

• Do language-related episodes occur in L2-HL
  dyads?
• If such opportunities do occur,
• 1. Does one learner (L2 or HL) initiate more LREs
  than the other?
• 2. Does one learners (L2 or HL) LREs get
  resolved more often than the others?
• 3. Does one learners (L2 or HL) LREs get
  resolved in a more targetlike way than the
  others?

20
Method

• 24 learners enrolled in an intermediate-level
  (fifth-semester) Spanish class at a large
  Midwestern US public university
• Second-language learners (N12)
• Monolingually-raised English speakers born in the
  US
• Did not have Spanish language instruction until
  high school or college
• Heritage language learners (N12)
• Bilingually-raised Spanish/English speakers born
  in the US
• Had at least one parent from a Spanish-speaking
  country
• Reported speaking both Spanish and English at
  home growing up
• English-dominant at present, but all reported
  that they continued to interact with at least one
  family member in Spanish on a regular basis

21
Distribution of learners into pairs
22

• None of the participants had ever been enrolled
  in bilingual education or dual-immersion courses
• All had been placed into the fifth-semester class
  for the study by
• a) Score on a university-administered placement
  test OR
• b) Progression through the course sequence

23
While looking at only one drawing each, the
partners must describe their pictures to each
other and determine the similarities and
differences between them Learner A
Learner B
24
Coding scheme

• All LREs identified and coded according to
• Which learner initiated the focus on form
• L2, HL
• Linguistic focus
• Grammar, vocabulary, or pronunciation
• Resolution
• Resolved, unresolved
• Targetlikeness of resolved LREs
• More targetlike (if the outcome of the LRE was
  more targetlike than the trigger),
• Less targetlike (if the outcome of the LRE was
  equally as non-targetlike or less targetlike than
  the trigger

25

• All data coded by 2 raters until 100 agreement
  was reached

26
Results

• Do language-related episodes occur in L2-HL
  dyads?
• 62 total LREs
• Mean 5.16 LREs per dyad
• Range 1-13 per dyad

27
(No Transcript)
28

• Does one learner (L2 or HL) initiate more
  language-related episodes than the other?

29
t(11).638, p.536
30

• 2. Does one learners (L2 or HL) language-related
  episodes get resolved more often than the
  others?
• Each LRE was tallied based on which learner
  initiated it (HL or L2) and based on whether it
  was resolved or unresolved
• 2x2 contingency table produced

31
LRE Initiator LRE Initiator
HL n L2 n Total (n)
LRE Resolution
Resolved 28 (82) 28 (100) 56
Unresolved 6 (18) 0 (0) 6
32

• Because one cell had a frequency of lt 5, a
  Fishers exact test was used instead of a Chi
  square
• Results showed that L2 learners LREs were indeed
  resolved significantly more often than those of
  HL learners (p0.022)
• Effect size was moderate (Cramers V 0.297)

33

• 3. Does one learners (L2 or HL)
  language-related episodes get resolved in a
  more targetlike way than the others?
• Resolved LREs (N51) were examined in detail

34
LRE Initiator LRE Initiator
HL n L2 n Total (n)
Nature of LRE Resolution
More targetlike 17 (68) 24 (92) 41
Less targetlike 8 (32) 2 (8) 10
35

• Fishers exact test used instead of a Chi square
• Results showed that L2 learners LREs were
  resolved in a more targetlike way significantly
  more often than those of HL learners (p0.038)
• Effect size was moderate (Cramers V 0.306)

36
Discussion

• Learners did focus on form in the two-way
  information gap task
• L2 and HL learners initiated a similar number of
  LREs
• Suggests that one type of learner did not
  dominate the task, although there were
  differences between L2 and HL learners

37

• LREs initiated by L2 learners were resolved more
  often and in a more targetlike way than those
  initiated by HL learners.
• HL learners in the mixed L2-HL pairs in the
  intermediate Spanish class in this study were
  less likely to have their language-related issues
  resolved.

38

• Even when they were resolved, the resolution was
  more likely to be less targetlike than
  resolutions of LREs initiated by L2 learners

39
Vocabulary-focused LREs

• A closer examination reveals that L2 learners may
  have benefited more because they were largely
  unfamiliar with the lexical set, whereas their HL
  interlocutors were more familiar with these
  home-related vocabulary words.

40
An HL learner providing a targetlike word for the
L2 learners circumlocution

• L2 Uh, en mi cocina, tengo una tapa para uh,el
  café uh, en la alacena derecha.
• Uh, in my kitchen, I have a cover for,
  uh, coffee, on the right-hand counter.
• HL Perdón, qué?
• Excuse me, what?
• L2 Una, para café, para beber café, una
• A, for coffee, to drink coffee, a
• HL Una taza?
• A mug?
• L2 Sí.
• Yes.

41

• But HL learners did sometimes benefit from their
  L2 partners
• Benefits not entirely one-sided, even for
  vocabulary-focused LREs on this lexical set

42
An HL learner providing a word for an L2 learner

• HL No, no la tengo. No tengo una cuchara.
  Tienes, eh, una cubeta junto al refrigerador?
• No, I do not have it. I have a spoon. Do you
  have, uh, a bucket next to the refrigerator?
• L2 No sé qué es cubeta.
• I dont know what bucket means.
• HL Una, unaes para limpiar.
• A, ait is for cleaning.
• L2 Para limpiar el piso?
• To clean the floor?
• HL Sí.
• Yes.
• L2 Como una escoba, para?
• Like a broom, to?
• HL No, no laughs. Una
• No, no. A
• L2 Cómo se llama? Otra palabra?
• What is it called? Another word?

43

• HL Cubeta?
• Bucket?
• L2 Qué es? Para qué se usa?
• What is it? What is it used for?
• HL xxx qué es?
• xxx what it is?
• L2 Yo no sé qué es.
• I do not know what it is.
• HL Es algo para poner el agua. El agua, pones
  el agua y para
• It is something to put water in. Water, you
  put water and to
• L2 Y hielo?
• And ice?
• HL No.
• No.
• L2 Oh! La cosa que una persona trae para con
  agua para limpiar.
• Oh! The thing that a person brings towith
  water to clean.

44
The same pairwith the L2 learner providing a
word for the HL learner

• HL Eh, tienes una, una cosa cerca del
  fregadero? Eh, parece una cosa para limpiar. No
  es una toalla. No es un paño.
• Uh, do you have a, a thing near the sink? Uh,
  it looks like a thing for cleaning. It is not a
  towel. It is not a cloth.
• L2 Es esponja? Esponja?
• Is it a sponge? Sponge?
• HL Yo no sé cómo se llama.
• I do not know what it is called.
• L2 Sí, es una esponja. No, no la tengo.
• Yes, it is a sponge. No, I do not have it.

45
Grammar- and pronunciation-focused LREs
LRE Initiator LRE Initiator
HL n L2 n Total (n)
LRE Focus
Grammar 3 (50) 3 (50) 6
Pronunciation 5 (100) 0 (0) 5
46

• Not enough tokens of grammar- or
  pronunciation-focused LREs for statistical
  analysis
• But there are trends that emerge
• Pronunciation LREs were (exclusively) initiated
  by HL learners when they had trouble
  understanding the message of L2 learners
• L2 learners never initiated pronunciation-focused
  LREs

47
An HL learner initiating a pronunciation-focused
LRE

• HL Ah, sí. Qué más? Qué más?
• Ah, yes. What else? What else?
• L2 Ok. Tienes el juego? wé?o
• OK. Do you have the game/set?
• HL Cuál juego? Oh, el jugo. xú?o
• Which game? Oh, the juice.
• L2 Jugo.
• Juice.
• HL Oh, es leche. Es leche o jugo? No sé. No
  tengo jugo o leche o lo que sea.
• Oh, its milk. Is it milk or juice? I dont
  know. I dont have juice or milk or whatever.

48

• None of the pronunciation-focused LREs were
  initiated by L2 learners because L2 learners did
  not question the pronunciation of the HL
  learners, nor did they ask the HL learners how to
  pronounce any lexical items.
• The pronunciation-focused LREs had one-sided
  benefits, for the L2 learners, who were the ones
  demonstrating pronunciation difficulties.
• Not unexpected, given clear advantage in
  pronunciation ability for HL learners compared to
  L2 learners.

49

• Mutual benefits for the grammar-focused LREs,
  half of which were initiated by L2 and half by HL
  learners
• HL Está más cerca a el
• It is closer to the
• L2 al
• to the
• HL fregadero?
• sink

50

• Just 6 examples in the dataset, but combined with
  research showing some shared morphosyntactic
  deficiencies between L2 and HL learners (Montrul,
  Foote, Perpiñán, 2008) it seems that grammar
  may be an area where both groups benefit.
• Differentiated instruction (Carreira, this
  institute)

51

• Mutual benefit when grammar issues arise
  incidentally (as in this study) or when
  grammatical features are task-essential, or
  task-useful.
• Inherent difficulty in creating such tasks

52
Limitations

• Classroom study (small n size but ecologically
  valid)
• Task focused on home vocabulary may have biased
  results in favor of HL learners

53

• Only linguistic benefits addressed, but what
  about affective factors, such as self- and
  partner-perceptions?

54

• After completing the task, both partners
  completed a perception questionnaire
• Likert-scale questionnaire with 25 questions on
  self- and partner perceptions

55
Examples from the questionnaire

• strongly disagree disagree
  somewhat disagree somewhat agree agree
  strongly agree
• Negative partner perception
• 1. I found working with my partner unpleasant.
• 1 2 3 4
  5 6
• Positive partner perception
• 2. I enjoyed working with my partner.
• 1 2 3
  4 5 6
• Positive self-perception
• 3. I felt that I could perform the task in
  Spanish.
• 1 2 3
  4 5 6
• Negative self-perception
• 4. I didnt feel confident about my ability in
  Spanish.
• 1 2 3
  4 5 6

56
Neutral feelings about their own ability
Disagree/strongly disagree with negative beliefs
about partner
57
(No Transcript)
58
(No Transcript)
59
(No Transcript)
60
(No Transcript)
61

• Students questionnaire responses indicate that
  both interlocutors perceived benefits from the
  interaction
• Self-selected group since students paired
  themselves?

62
What about modality?

• Ongoing data collection including both oral and
  written tasks
• Oral Spot-the-differences task
• Written
• Crossword puzzle task
• Cloze and complete the story task

63
(Very) Preliminary findings

• Laboratory-based study
• Learners paired based on proficiency (measured by
  DELE cloze)
• Data on the three tasks collected from 1 L2-HL
  pair so far
• 11 LREs

64
(No Transcript)
65
Typical spelling LRE
L2 Dos años después la vio otra vez en la biblioteca, o algo así
HL Two years later he saw her again in the library, or something like that OK (writing) dos años
L2 OK(writing) two years Oh, dos semanas! No dos años! Perdón! Oh, two weeks! Not two years! Excuse me!
HL Dos semanas despuésdespués lleva acento?
L2 Two weeks laterdoes later have an accent? Sí Yes
HL Sobre la 'e'? On the e?

66

• More research is needed to determine how best to
  instruct all students in mixed classes
• Pairing students differently based on modality
  seems promising
• HL learners can help L2 learners in oral tasks
  and L2 learners can use their metalinguistic (and
  written) knowledge to help HL learners in written
  tasks
• But what about learning outcomes?

67

• Stay tunedindividualized post-testing is part of
  the ongoing data collection!

68
Acknowledgments

• UIUC Campus Research Board (Award 08166)
• Florencia Henshaw (UIUC)
• Silvina Montrul (UIUC)
• Kim Potowski (UIC)
• Paul D. Toth (Temple University)
• Rebecca Adams (University of Auckland)