This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 11 November 2014, At: 02:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of BilingualEducation and BilingualismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20

Constructing content and languageknowledge in plurilingual studentteamwork: situated and longitudinalperspectivesEmilee Mooreab

a Language Department, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya,Barcelona, Spainb Department of Language, Literature and Social ScienceEducation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, SpainPublished online: 09 Dec 2013.

To cite this article: Emilee Moore (2014) Constructing content and language knowledge inplurilingual student teamwork: situated and longitudinal perspectives, International Journal ofBilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17:5, 586-609, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2013.860947

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Constructing content and language knowledge in plurilingual studentteamwork: situated and longitudinal perspectives

Emilee Moorea,b*

aLanguage Department, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain; bDepartment ofLanguage, Literature and Social Science Education, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona,Barcelona, Spain

(Received 28 February 2013; accepted 22 October 2013)

This paper explores how students in an Educational Psychology subject in a universityL2 immersion context accomplish learning, mobilise their plurilingual repertoires andrestructure their participation in carrying out a teamwork task over the course ofapproximately one week. The study is novel in several ways. First, it aims to fill a gapin the literature by exploring dynamics of knowledge construction in a multilingual,‘internationalised’ university classroom, a context that is currently underrepresented inresearch, although increasingly common in practice. Second, the theoretical-analyticalframework, inspired by socio-constructivism and conversation analysis, lends supportto both situated and longitudinal arguments for learning; perspectives that are oftenexamined separately in interactionist literature. Finally, the framework is used to seekevidence of knowledge construction not only in terms of the second language but alsoin terms of disciplinary content and by paying particular attention to how studentsparticipate and use their available languages in managing the different task stages. Theresults not only demonstrate the utility of the proposed framework but also highlighthow the mobilisation of plurilingual repertoires may be advantageous for learning andparticipation in similar higher education classroom settings and, ultimately, for doinginternationalisation.

Keywords: Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL); plurilingualism;internationalisation of higher education; teamwork tasks; translanguaging

1. Internationalisation and plurilingualism in a Catalan university classroom

It is well known that European universities are immersed in internationalisation, andstudent exchanges are one way that this is being put into practice. At Catalan universitieslike the one where this research was carried out, English, explicitly defined as the linguafranca in policies (see Section 3), is being introduced into classroom practices to ensurethe participation of incoming students. However, internationalisation is simultaneouslytaking place at European universities in practices targeting the local population. At theuniversity studied, English is increasingly being introduced through different bilingualimmersion strategies in subjects across faculties with the aim of ‘killing two birds withone stone’. Such methodological approaches have tended to be referred to in highereducation research under the umbrella terms Content and Language Integrated Learning

*Email: esmoore@uic.es; Emilee.Moore@uab.cat

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 2014Vol. 17, No. 5, 586–609, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

(CLIL), Integrated Content and Language (ICL) or English Medium Instruction (EMI),although classroom practices differ greatly in terms of the specific objectives andmethods adopted in supporting students in the development of second language1 andcontent knowledge.

This paper explores interactions in an Educational Psychology subject delivered inEnglish involving both local and international students. By using English, the teacheraimed both to encourage foreign students to enrol in the subject and to boost localstudents’ capacity to work within a global academic and professional field dominated byEnglish.2 This particular classroom setting can, therefore, be understood to simulta-neously operate within externally and domestically oriented dynamics of internationalisa-tion. More specifically, the article explores how a group of four local and internationalstudent participants accomplish a teamwork task demanded of them in English, requiringthe management of both content and language-related complexities. In particular, it aimsto trace evidence of second language and content knowledge construction and to observehow students mobilise their available plurilingual3 resources in managing theirparticipation throughout the process of task completion. The research seeks inspirationfrom the literature on second language and disciplinary content learning in multilingualcontexts and on plurilingualism, to which the discussion now turns.

2. Conceptualising second language and content learning

2.1 Understanding the nature of learning

The conceptual framework guiding the study is motivated by two complementaryapproaches to cognition (Mondada and Pekarek Doehler 2004). On the one hand, it drawson socio-constructivist (SC) learning theories, originating in the work of Vygotsky (1934/1986, 1978). From such a perspective, social interaction is understood to be both theembryo of cognitive activities, such as learning, and the natural context for their study.On the other hand, the research is inspired by ethnomethodology (EM) and conversationanalysis (CA), in understanding ‘all cognitive properties of persons as embedded within,and thereby available from, their situated communicative and other forms of activities’(Coulter 1991, 189). That is to say, from SC and EM/CA perspectives, cognition andlearning are conceptualised as activities that are intrinsically interactional and sociallydistributed (Kasper 2008).

Following from this, the notion of mediation, originating in Vygostky’s work, provesvery useful for understanding the intrinsic relationship between interaction and learning.Mediation refers to how individuals’ achievement of their learning-related goals is oftenfacilitated (Alber and Py 1985; Py 1986) or scaffolded (Wood, Bruner, and Ross 1976) byculturally generated artefacts (e.g. languages, gesture, writing systems and physicalobjects), activities (e.g. learning tasks) and others (e.g. more expert peers). EM/CA-influenced approaches to cognition have also discussed the notion of mediation (e.g.Mondada and Pekarek Doehler 2000; Pekarek Doehler 2009). However, in line with theirstrongly emic perspective, Pekarek Doehler (2009) proposes the term mediation-in-interaction to take into account how different elements which potentially come into themediational process (e.g. the use of available languages, the organisation of learningtasks, participation frameworks and learning goals themselves) can be explained asinteractional accomplishments rather than be taken-for-granted.

Expanding the SC paradigm and providing a further challenge to conventionalconceptualisations of learning as an individual process of internalisation, the work by

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 587

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Lave and Wenger (1991) and Wenger (1998) introduces the notion of communities ofpractice (CoP) (see also Brouwer and Wagner 2004). These authors describe participationin concrete, tangible and shared social activities as a constitutive element of a socialtheory of learning. According to Wenger (1998, 214), ‘learning is an integral part of oureveryday lives. It is part of our participation in communities and organisations’. Centralto this theory is the concept of legitimate peripheral participation, which is used toconceptualise learning as a shift from novice to expert ways of doing. Similarly, languagesocialisation approaches with SC theory aim to account for social, cultural and cognitivedimensions of development by focusing on processes ‘by which novices or newcomers ina community or culture gain communicative competence, membership, and legitimacy inthe group’ (Duff 2007, 308). These two approaches thus have much in common and offeran appealing framework for contextualising and theorising learning across time and tasks(Duff and Kobayashi 2010).

2.2 Evidence of second language and content learning in EM/CA

The above discussion raises questions about evidence of learning in interactionist research.Second language acquisition (SLA) studies in this tradition tend towards relativism andusually investigate learning as a situated social action, as opposed to a longitudinal activity(Mori 2007), or what Firth and Wagner (2007) call ‘doing learning’. In such research,sequences are analysed in which participants are engaging in second-language learning bytemporarily attending to more than just communication (Firth and Wagner 2007). This isthe case in data from ordinary and classroom interactions discussed, for example, inBrouwer (2003), De Pietro, Matthey, and Py (1989), Krafft and Dausendschön-Gay (1994),Firth and Wagner (2007) and Moore (2011). In his learning behaviour trackingmethodology, Markee (2008) uses CA to pinpoint moments when particular secondlanguage objects are oriented to in interaction, or what he calls learning object tracking. Inall of these studies, speakers and hearers are seen to momentarily focalise (Bange 1992)and, sometimes, display more or less immediate output of a novel aspect from a secondlanguage. Such potential acquisition sequences (De Pietro, Matthey, and Py 1989; Krafftand Dausendschön-Gay 1994) often emerge as a result of repair (Schegloff, Jefferson, andSacks 1977; see Markee 2008); one of the basic building blocks of interaction and aphenomenon that emerges frequently in the data is presented in this article.

However, in the classroom interactions analysed herein, the ways participantsmomentarily focus on objects from both the second language and the disciplinarycontent are of interest. In this regard, Barwell (2003, 2005) uses the CA-inspired notionof attention for exploring how both second language and content-related elements of atask temporarily come under the lens in interaction between students. Similarly, Gajo(2007) explores how problematic aspects of a second language – what he calls opacity –and from disciplinary content – density – are momentarily transformed into learningobjects in bilingual immersion classrooms. Drawing on the SC framework, he uses thenotions of mediation or conceptualisation to refer to the process of attending to subjectdensity and remediation or clarification to refer to sequences in which opaque aspects ofthe second language are dealt with in interaction.

The following fragment from a Science Education subject taught in English at theuniversity under study illustrates the explanatory power of these notions for understand-ing situated content and language learning. The data is from a group of five Catalanstudents (MON: Monica, LAI: Laia, SAN: Sandra, SER: Sergi, MAR: Maria) working in

588 E. Moore

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

a laboratory. In the sequence, students are carrying out a task in which they formulatequestions as a group that could be asked to primary school pupils about apples. Here, thequestion refers to the ‘reproduction’ of apples.

Fragment 1

1 SAN: NOW\ (0.4) the (0.8) the repro- (0.2) [the way of]

2 reproducing\=

3 LAI: [xxx xxx]

4 SER: =e:h

5 (0.2)

6 SAN: the way of reproducing\ (.) or the way (0.7)

7 ((to SER) tu sabes xx (germinan?))

&SAN: ((to SER) you know xx (germinate?))

8 (1.9)

9 MAR: com creixen\=

&MAR: how they grow\=

10 SAN: =how grow up\ (.) how the apples reproduce\

11 (0.2)

12 LAI: grow\=

13 SAN: =they (0.6) es que no se xx\

&SAN: =they (0.6) it’s that i don’t know xx\

14 (3.5)

15 SER: ((to the voice recorder) com es diu reproduir\)

&SER: ((to the voice recorder) how do you say reproduce\)

16 (.)

17 ALL: ((laugh))

18 SAN: ((laughing) es reproduce\)

&SAN: ((laughing) it’s reproduce\)

19 (1.2)

20 SAN: [es reproduce\]

&SAN: [it’s reproduce\]

21 SER: [ho:w- how do] the apples reproduce/=

22 SAN: =es reproduce\

&SAN: =it’s reproduce\

23 (0.2)

24 SER: [itself/]

25 MAR: [repro]duce/

26 (0.8)

27 SAN: ((laughing) es que este es el problema\)

&SAN: ((laughing) it’s that this is the problem\)

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 589

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

In lines 1–2 it becomes clear that Sandra is experiencing trouble in formulating her idea,displayed through her self-interruption and reformulation (‘the repro … the way ofreproducing’). Sergi hesitates in line 4, and Sandra repeats the idea in line 6, but her ‘or’cues a search for an alternative way of expressing it. She switches to Spanish in line 7 (adiscussion that will be returned to in Section 3 of this article) and looks to Sergi forassistance, apparently looking for the word to express the concept of ‘germination’(‘germinan’). In line 9, Maria introduces another notion – in Catalan – being that of‘growth’ (‘com creixen’). Sandra translates Maria’s intervention into English (‘how growup’) in her following turn (line 10) and then repeats the question using the verb‘reproduce’. She, therefore, makes it clear that the problem for her is not just with thetranslation of the verbs into English. However, in line 12, Laia translates Maria’s proposedverb (‘grow’), suggesting that she interprets Sandra’s problem as a linguistic one.

In line 13, Sandra’s search continues. She again switches to Spanish in expressing hertrouble. After a few moments of silence, Sergi takes the voice recorder off the table andasks ‘it’ in Catalan for the translation of the verb ‘reproduir’ (line 15). Therefore, he alsodemonstrates his interpretation of Sandra’s difficulty as being linguistic. Followinglaughter, however, Sandra again displays her knowledge of how to translate the verb intoEnglish (‘reproduce’, lines 18, 20 and 22). Sergi formulates the complete question, ‘howdo the apples reproduce’, in line 21. Yet, Maria, who had previously proposed ‘grow’,questions the adequacy of the verb ‘reproduce’ (line 25). At the same time, Sergiquestions whether the verb is reflexive (‘itself’, line 24). Sandra then explains – inSpanish – that these are precisely the sorts of problems she has been getting at (line 27).

Thus, the analysis demonstrates how different students direct their attention at diverselearning objects in the process of task completion. While Sandra primarily focalisesthe scientific concept of reproduction (density), some of her peers interpret the troubleas the simple translation of that concept into English (opacity). In both cases, followingthe conceptual framework constructed until now, such attention to linguistic and content-related aspects of the task constitutes an environment conducive to knowledgeconstruction.

However, although this theoretical agenda is useful for studying learning as a situatedactivity, another perspective emerging in SC and EM/CA research seeks to account forlearning as a longitudinal process as well. This approach has posed both conceptual andpractical challenges for EM/CA (Brouwer and Wagner 2004; Mori 2007; Markee 2008),yet some recent studies have begun to provide confirmation of EM/CA’s potential fordocumenting development over time (e.g. Brouwer and Wagner 2004; Firth and Wagner2007; Markee 2008). This is what Firth and Wagner (2007) refer to as an evidentialargument for learning. Markee (2008, 409) refers to EM/CA’s potential for learningprocess tracking, which ‘involves developing conversation analyses of how and whenparticipants orient to, and potentially incorporate, particular learning objects that occur indifferent speech events in their interactional repertoires’.

Brouwer and Wagner (2004) suggest a more encompassing CA learning framework,similar to CoP and socialisation approaches, in seeking to trace the complex ways inwhich participation is achieved and altered, in which the character of interaction changesand in which interactional resources are established across encounters (see alsoEvnitskaya and Morton 2011; Young and Miller 2004). They focus, among other aspects,on the organisation of repair and on how plurilingual repertoires are drawn on inaccomplishing talk over time – phenomena that are relevant to the present study.

Drawing on the framework outlined in this section, in this paper, an analysis ispresented to support both situated and longitudinal arguments for learning in an

590 E. Moore

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Psychology university subject. One of the novelties of the study lies in thefact that such evidence is sought not only in terms of second language development butalso in terms of the disciplinary content. Before engaging with this analysis, however,support for the conceptualisation of plurilingualism as a resource for knowledgeconstruction, among other available cultural artefacts, will be put forward.

3. Plurilingualism as a resource for second language and content learning

Despite significant evidence to the contrary (see research cited in this section),researchers working within the field of multilingual education continue to face thechallenge of deconstructing deeply rooted conceptualisations about what it means to be a‘competent’ plurilingual individual. From a monolingual bias, such competence wouldamount to no more than the simple addition of languages acquired separately, and termssuch as interlanguage could help account for apparent deficiencies in a speakers’developing plurilingual repertoire (Lüdi and Py 2009). However, a large body of non-mainstream SLA research has successfully demonstrated how plurilingual speakers havea unique and single plurilingual competence, the complexity of which cannot beunderstood by simply looking at their skills in different languages (e.g. Firth and Wagner1997, 2007; Lüdi and Py 2003, 2009). Such contributions have in common an underlyingcritique of approaches to language as a monolithic construct consisting of discrete,cognitively embedded skills, in favour of conceptualisations of languaging (Becker 1995)as a practical social action.

According to Lüdi and Py (2009), a useful step to understanding the complexity ofsuch competence would be to replace the misleading notion of competence all together.They suggest instead referring to the resources available to plurilingual individuals ininteraction with others for the achievement of different interactional, social, institutionaland cognitive ends, including the accomplishment of learning tasks (e.g. Barwell 2003,2005; Gajo 2007; García and Sylvan 2011; Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain 2005; Moore2011; Moore, Nussbaum, and Borràs 2013; Moschkovich 2002; Ustunel and Seedhouse2005). This approach to plurilingual competence ‘presupposes the existence of a free andactive subject who has amassed a repertoire of resources and who activates this repertoireaccording to his/her need, knowledge or whims, modifying or combining them wherenecessary’ (Lüdi and Py 2009, 159).

Plurilingual competence is, therefore, highly contingent and unique in that it isintimately linked to the lived experiences of the individual. In this regard, Cook (1991,2007) coined the notion of multicompetence to account for the ‘continually changingrelationship between two or more language systems that are themselves constantlychanging’ (2007, 209). Drawing on this author, Hall, Cheng, and Carlson (2006, 229)argue that all language knowledge is unstable, social and dynamic – no matter how manylanguages the individual has access to – with ‘the differences across users based not onnumber of languages but on amount and diversity of experiences and use’.

Different authors have used diverse concepts to describe specific practices or ways ofmobilising resources that help constitute such plurilingual or multicompetence. Auer(1984) discussed the notion of conversational codeswitching to refer to how plurilingualspeakers meaningfully juxtapose resources from different language systems. García(2009) uses the more encompassing notion of translanguaging – building on the idea oflanguaging introduced above – to talk about hybridity in multilingual classrooms forengaging in complex meaning making practices through language. García and Sylvan(2011, 389) explain:

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 591

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Translanguaging includes codeswitching […] and it also includes translation, but it differsfrom both of these simple practices in that it refers to the process in which bilingual studentsmake sense and perform bilingually in the myriad of ways of classrooms – reading, writing,taking notes, discussing, signing, and so on. However, translanguaging is not only a way toscaffold instruction and to make sense of learning and language; it is part of the discursiveregimes that students in the 21st century must perform, part of the linguistic repertoire thatincludes, at times, the ability to function in the standardized academic languages required inschools. It is thus important to view translanguaging as complex discursive practices thatenable bilingual students to also develop and enact standard academic ways of languaging.

The notion of translanguaging is thus central to constructing an understanding ofplurilingualism as it materialises in multilingual classroom settings and contributes tooverlapping social processes, including knowledge construction.

In this regard, a large body of research has demonstrated the precise ways in whichplurilingualism in formal learning contexts may contribute to the construction of languageand content knowledge and facilitate academic task completion. For example, Nussbaumand her colleagues (e.g. Nussbaum and Unamuno 2000, 2006; Masats, Nussbaum, andUnamuno 2007) have extensively researched student interaction during L2 pair and groupwork school classroom tasks in order to trace the development of L2 oral communicativecompetences. Their research has revealed a progressive reduction in terms of how muchstudents depend on resources from their L1(s) in eventually completing academic tasks.That is to say, they increasingly orient to the L2 unilingual mode (one language at a time)demanded of them by the academic context or to standard academic languaging practices.Similarly, having followed the process of a group of Japanese ESL students’ preparationfor a university class presentation in English, Duff and Kobayashi (2010) report thatcodeswitching into Japanese was initially quite common among the students. Interest-ingly, though, the students gradually reduced their recourse to L1 as the presentation gotcloser, demonstrating their acquisition of the second language as well as theirsocialisation into institutional expectations about the use of English.

Emerging research into plurilingual interaction in different classroom immersioncontexts (e.g. CLIL, ICL and EMI) at different levels of education has also demonstratedthat the plurilingual mode (all languages at all times) may both facilitate and help createnovel opportunities for the treatment of knowledge objects coming not only from thesecond language but also from the disciplinary content. Gajo and his colleagues (Gajoand Berthoud 2008; Gajo and Grobet 2008) claim that the L2 unilingual mode in suchclassrooms can often be linked to the simplification of the subject content or density.According to these authors, the plurilingual mode can be considered an advantage in tworespects. On the one hand, plurilingual practices help to bring about situated negotiationsof knowledge to fruition, or what they call completion. On the other hand, themobilisation of other languages can help in the accomplishment of sufficient complexityin terms of the academic subject or saturation. These affirmations are supported by Smit’s(2010, 367) research into English lingua franca classroom interaction in an internationaluniversity program in Austria. Although not focusing explicitly on codeswitching, herdata reveal how German becomes ‘established as a fall-back option’ and takes on a‘supportive function’ in students’ mediation with the disciplinary content. Although adiscussion of the complexity of lingua franca is beyond the scope of this paper (see,however, Moore, Borràs, and Nussbaum 2013), it is relevant to clarify that when referringto such talk – as one form of plurilingualism that is available to individuals who havemore than one language at their disposal – it is language use rather than language learning

592 E. Moore

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

that is primarily at stake for both analyst and interactional participants. It is perhaps notsurprising, therefore, that non-standard features are ‘let pass’ (Firth 1996) in the course ofinteraction or that practices of translanguaging emerge in dealing with emergingcontingencies, such as those affecting academic task accomplishment. The analysispresented here, however, reveals that even in lingua franca talk, the L2 can betransformed into an object of learning.

Drawing on these insights, the remainder of this paper focuses on how a small groupof local and international student participants in a university-level Educational Psycho-logy subject deal with a teamwork task demanded of them in English over time. Thefollowing section briefly introduces the data before turning to the analysis.

4. Exploring knowledge construction in ‘internationalised’ student teamwork

The Educational Psychology course, an elective subject offered in the bachelor’s degreein Psychology at a public Catalan university, is organised around two weekly sessions.In one of these sessions, the teacher leads a lecture in English and sets assessment tasks.In the second session, a small group of students leads a theoretical presentation and adiscussion about a scientific article they have read in English as part of their assessment.Languages besides English were not explicitly contemplated by the teacher a priori, orat the level of meso-alternation (Duverger 2007). The analysis in this paper centres onthe process followed by a group of two Catalan students – Ariadna (ARI) and Gisela(GIS) – and two international students – Emine (EMI) from Turkey and Camilla (CAM)from Belgium (Figure 1) – in preparation for their presentation. Observations of thedata, as well as biographical information, available to the researcher suggest that thestudents are all quite proficient in English, while the local students’ background inPsychology is stronger than that of the international students. The article that thestudents are working on is entitled, ‘The Relationship Between Career Variables andOccupational Aspirations and Expectations for Australian High School Adolescents’(Patton and Creed 2007).

The teamwork meeting studied in Section 4.1 took place in a study room at auniversity library outside of class time. The students were left alone with a video cameraand an audio recorder and were asked by the researcher to document their meeting fromstart to finish. The complete recorded interaction lasts approximately 34 minutes. Theresearcher also collected the students’ individual study notes on the day of theirpresentation, one week after the teamwork meeting. The teams’ recorded presentationlasts approximately 54 minutes and was collected by the researcher, who was also presentin the classroom. This data is explored in Section 4.2.

After working through the teamwork data a large number of times, specific sequencesof interaction were chosen for transcription and analysis that documented instances whenparticular objects from either the second language or the disciplinary content wereattended to by participants. Following this, the students’ notes and their presentation werescanned for attention to those same objects. Throughout the process of analysis, changesin students’ participation and use of plurilingual resources across the data were alsodocumented. Furthermore, in line with the CA approach, a multimodal analysis wascarried out to take into account not only talk, but also other multimodal features ofinteraction that may help configure the learning context and mediate knowledgeconstruction. These features are represented in the video stills included below thetranscripts.

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 593

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

The analysis is organised as follows: in Section 4.1, three sequences in which studentslocally attend to particular learning objects (i.e. the meaning of certain psychologicalvariables) are explored. In Section 4.2, a longitudinal argument for how those sameobjects are incorporated into the students’ interactional repertoire (Markee 2008) isformulated, and changes in participation and the use of languages over time arehighlighted. This is done by focusing on the trajectory of Gisela, the student displayingthe most difficulty during the teamwork meeting.

4.1 Tracing the situated emergence of learning objects

At the beginning of the recorded teamwork interaction, students negotiate how to positionthe camera. Following this, Gisela orients the group to the academic task at hand byraising a doubt, as can be observed in the opening of Fragment 2.

Fragment 2

1 GIS: I read something of the article in the internet but (1.0) i

2 don’t understand very well\

3 (0.5)

4 ARI: no/

5 (0.9)

6 GIS: because of the concepts\ (0.5) occupational aspirations (0.2)

7 career status aspirations (0.4) i don’t kno:w\

8 (0.5)

9 EMI: hm:\

10 (0.3)

Figure 1. Group members.

594 E. Moore

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

11 GIS: the difference between (0.3) occupational/ (0.5) and career

12 status/ (0.1) i don’t know\ (0.1) what is the difference\

13 (1.3)

14 CAM: let me see:/ (0.1) occupational and

15 (3.0)

16 GIS: a::hm::\

17 (2.3)

18 CAM: occupatio[nal aspira:tions]

19 ARI: [i don’t know] but that is related with the skills you

20 have\ (.) if you have go to the university: only to the hi:gh

21 schoo:l only primary: (0.4) s- (0.3) studies (0.6) [i don’t]

22 know if it has- if it’s related to this\

23 STU: [hah ah\]

24 (0.2)

25 GIS: it’s related to the: fig. 2(0.3) trajectory/

26 (0.1)

27 ARI: hm:

28 (0.1)

29 STU: ah

30 GIS: it’s corr[ect/]

31 EMI: [ok\]

32 (1.3)

33 GIS: it’s correct tra- ((laughing) trajectory/)

34 (.)

35 CAM: [wha:t the:/]

36 EMI: [traject]o[ry (no?)\]

37 ARI: [((laughs))]

38 GIS: [the fig. 3tra[ject-]] the ay\ com se diu aixo\=

&GIS: [the fig. 3tra[ject-]] the ay\ how do you say that\=

39 STU: [xx]

40 CAM: =tra[ject/]

41 ARI: [the:] the: fig. 4the per- the:- (0.4) what do you mean\

42 (0.6)

43 GIS: la trajectoria\

&GIS: the trajectory\

44 (0.3)

45 ARI: pero: academica/

&ARI: bu:t academic/

46 (0.3)

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 595

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

47 GIS: sı:\

&GIS: ye:s\

48 (0.1)

49 ARI: like the: eh: eh: (0.2) a[ca]demic history well [the:]

50 CAM: [ok\]

51 EMI: [yea:h

52 [yea:h xx [xx\]]

53 CAM:[yeah yeah yeah [yeah\]]

54 GIS: [yes\]

The doubt expressed by Gisela about ‘the concepts’ is twofold: on the one hand, she doesnot understand the difference between ‘career’ and ‘occupation’ and, on the other hand,between ‘aspirations’ and ‘expectations’ (lines 1–12). Camilla skims over the article withGisela in lines 14–18, looking to locate those terms. In lines 19–22, Ariadna suggests that‘occupational aspirations’ and ‘career status aspirations’ are related to one’s level ofstudies. In line 25, Gisela initiates a word search, evidenced by her sound stretching andiconic gesture (placing the palms of her hands parallel to each other at a distance, asthough to indicate a time span, see Figure 2) asking if they are related to one’s‘trajectory’. There is consensus in the group, however, that ‘trajectory’ is incorrect inEnglish (lines 27–37) and so the word search continues. In line 38, Gisela looks toAriadna and, again facing her palms into each other and moving them up and down(Figure 3), she repeats the word, before producing a self-interruption and switching toCatalan to seek repair from Ariadna.

Ariadna continues the word search in line 41, producing a slightly different, circulargesture (Figure 4). She begins to suggest a word, ‘per(iod?)’, before self-interrupting and

Figure 2. Multimodal resources (Fragment 2, line 25).

596 E. Moore

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

asking Gisela to clarify what she means. Gisela translates the word into Catalan,‘trajectòria’ (line 43) and Ariadna seeks further clarification – also in Catalan – aboutwhether Gisela is referring to the academic trajectory (line 45). Gisela assents in herfollowing turn and Ariadna continues the word search, suggesting ‘academic history’ asthe correct term (line 49). Agreement from her peers in lines 50–54 suggests that theword search has been successful.

In Fragment 3, however, from slightly later in the teamwork discussion, it becomesapparent that the task still presents certain conceptual and linguistic problems for Gisela.

Figure 3. Multimodal resources (Fragment 2, line 38).

Figure 4. Multimodal resources (Fragment 2, line 41).

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 597

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

She proposes that ‘career’ is not only related to one’s academic history, as has beenestablished previously, and asks her peers to confirm their understanding of the word(lines 1–6).

Fragment 3

1 GIS: bu::t (1.7) it’s not only the aca- the academic (0.2) history\

2 (0.1) career\

3 (2.9)

4 EMI: ˚ah\˚

5 (0.1)

6 GIS: what do you inter- what do you understand (0.1) fo:r career\

7 (1.0)

8 EMI: ˚career\˚

9 (0.1)

10 ARI: it’s from the time when you FINISH the universityfig. 5/

11 (.)

12 CAM: hm yeah\

13 (0.3)

14 GIS: ah\

15 (0.1)

16 ARI: it’s [because in our language]

17 GIS: [and you: sta:rt-]

18 ARI> [CARRERA]

&ARI> [CAREER]

19 GIS: [you start\]

20 (0.2)

21 ARI: it’s [very] similar to career but [it’s on]ly the degree\

22 STU: [hm hm\]

23 GIS: [ye:s\]

24 (0.1)

25 CAM: a::h [ok no no\]

26 ARI: [and we are always confused about] it\

In response to Gisela’s question, in line 10, Ariadna argues that career is ‘from the timeyou finish the university…’. In that same line, after saying ‘university’, she produces anembodied completion (Olsher 2004; Mori and Hayashi 2006) of her turn, moving herhands in an upward motion as though to metaphorically express future time, in unisonwith Gisela, who thereby displays her understanding of what Ariadna is expressing(Figure 5). Camilla agrees, and in line 14, Gisela’s ‘ah’ could be interpreted as anothertoken of her comprehension. Ariadna, who understands the source of Gisela’smisunderstanding, explains to their peers that a ‘false friend’ in Spanish and Catalan,

598 E. Moore

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

‘carrera’, means ‘degree’ in English (lines 16, 18, 21 and 26). Gisela, in overlap, expandsthe definition of career: when ‘you start’ (something else) (lines 17 and 19). The groupverbalises a new consensus at the end of the fragment.

Yet it becomes apparent from Fragment 4 – later in the meeting – that certain aspectsof the task continue to present difficulties for Gisela; she is still not sure about the exactmeaning of the different variables. Immediately prior to the fragment, she has beenskimming the article. The fragment begins with her expressing what she later describes asa language difficulty.

Fragment 4

1 GIS: ˚es que jo xxxx que es career\°

&GIS: ˚it’s that i xxxx what career is\°

2 (0.4)

3 ARI: o sigui career és la carrera professional\

&ARI: so career is the professional career\

4 (.)

5 GIS: sı sı\ (0.7) pero\ (0.5) es que- l’ocupacio/

&GIS: yes yes\ (0.7) but\ (0.5) it’s that- the occupation/

6 (1.6)

7 ARI: clar tu dintre de la teva carrera professional tindras

8 diferents- sorry just a [moment\]

&ARI: of course you within your professional career will have

different- sorry just a [moment\]

9 CAM: [(nada] pues?)\

&CAM: [(no worries] then?)\

Figure 5. Multimodal resources (Fragment 3, line 10).

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 599

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

10 (0.1)

11 EMI: [yeah\]

12 GIS: [yeah] because i have a ((laughing) difficult [with the:])=

13 CAM: [((laughs))]=

14 ARI: =son difer[ents:]

&ARI: =they’re differ[ent:]

15 GIS> [lan]guage\

16 (0.9)

17 ARI: diferents ocupacions vull di:r\ (0.8) jo que se com la carrera

18 esportiu pues la carrera professional\

&ARI: different occupations i mean\ (0.8) i don’t know like the sporting

career well the professional career\

19 (0.6)

20 ARI: es que no se si entenc molt be el que m’estas demanant

21 [potser\]

&ARI: it’s that i don’t know if i really understand what you are asking

[maybe\]

22 GIS:[sı sı sı] sı sı\ (0.4) es que no entenc o sigui no entenc la

23 diferencia entre (1.5) hm:\ (0.08) hm:\ (2.2) es que no em: no

24 em recordo\

&GIS:[yes yes yes] yes yes\ (0.4) it’s that i don’t understand i mean i

don’t understand the difference between (1.5) hm:\ (0.08) hm:\ (2.2)

it’s that i don’t i: i don’t remember\

25 (0.7)

26 ARI: entre estatus i xx l’ocupacio-=

&ARI: between status and xx the occupation-=

27 GIS: =sı lo de l’estatus i: la aspiration la expectation i tot

28 aixo\

&GIS: =yes the thing about the status a:nd the aspiration the expectation

and all that\

29 (0.5)

30 ARI: well i think that aspiration is what you want\ (0.2) and

31 expectation is so:me somehow more realistic what you think you

32 will have\

33 (0.1)

34 GIS: sı it’s [more XX\]

&GIS: yes it’s [more XX\]

35 ARI: [for example i wa- my] aspiration is to be rich\

36 (0.5) but i won’t be rich\ (0.5) so i expect to not be rich\

600 E. Moore

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

37 (0.6)

38 EMI: yeah\

39 (0.1)

40 ARI: so perhap- perhaps i can aspirate to a: have to be a doctor

41 (0.5) but as my:- i am not studying (0.1) for example i know

42 that i won’t be a doctor so i\ (0.5) i don’t expect to be a:

43 doctor\

44 (0.5)

45 ARI: and they measure (0.3) this

46 (0.5)

47 GIS: but it’s more realistic (0.3) the: the expectations that you

48 [have\] that- [than] the: aspirations\

49 ARI: [yeah\]

50 ARI: [yeah\]

51 (0.2)

52 ARI: the aspiration [is the ideal-] idealistic one you [choose\]

53 GIS: [aspirations\]

54 CAM: [like] dreams

55 [yeah\]

56 ARI:[yeah\]

Despite the definitions constructed earlier in the interaction (Fragments 2 and 3), Giselastill struggles to understand the distinction made in the article between ‘career’ and‘occupation’, on the one hand, and ‘aspirations’ and ‘expectations’, on the other. Sheswitches to Catalan, lowering her voice and addressing Ariadna at the beginning of thefragment. The pair apologises to Camilla and Emine for the switch and proceeds toresolve the first of Gisela’s doubts – in Catalan – related to the difference between‘career’ and ‘occupational’. The pair then locates the source of Gisela’s second problem:the difference between ‘aspiration’ and ‘expectation’ (lines 26 and 27). Ariadna thenswitches back to English, ending the exchange between the two girls, to define toconcepts by taking them out of the academic context of the article and recontextualising(Lüdi and Py 2009; Py 2007) them in more layman’s terms in the first person (lines30–43). Following this, the group reaches consensus on the definition of the terms.

The analysis thus far demonstrates how, in constructing their understandings of thevariables, students are forced to focalise certain aspects of the second language thatemerge as problematic; such as the meaning of the word ‘career’, or the correct word toexpress ‘trajectory’ in English. Students can be seen to recur to codeswitching (alwaysinitiated by Gisela) when a solution to communicative or conceptual trouble is notsatisfactorily accomplished in English or through multimodal means (e.g. by initiallyusing iconic gesturing in word searches, such as in the case of ‘trajectory’, Fragment 1,lines 25 and 38). This lends support to the claim that recourse to plurilingualism helpsachieve completion in terms of negotiation in L2 and saturation in terms of theconceptualisation of the psychological content (Gajo and Berthoud 2008; Gajo and

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 601

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Grobet 2008) in sequences such as those explored, in which the unilingual mode appearsto become insufficient in mediating knowledge construction.

The analysis further highlights the different participant roles taken on by the groupmembers, with Gisela clearly positioning herself as a non-expert both in terms of the useof English and in terms of the psychological content being dealt with. Using Auer’s(1998) terminology, her use of Catalan in the fragments is both competence-related, inindexing her difficulty, and discourse-related, in that it serves to select Ariadna as herprimary interlocutor. This positioning by Gisela may, in turn, be related to the fact thatAriadna knows more about psychology than the international peers, who, it was revealedat one point in the meeting, had not even read the article. However, it is interesting tonote that despite this reality, Camilla and Emine take on expert stances throughout theinteraction – alongside Ariadna – by being active in group agreements. Their confidencewith English arguably compensates for their little background in the field of psychology.

Keeping in mind the findings discussed thus far, in the following section of theanalysis, evidence is sought for longitudinal development, giving prominence in thediscussion to how emerging learning objects are dealt with, to how plurilingual resourcesare mobilised and to how participation evolves over time.

4.2 Tracing learning longitudinally

As has been mentioned above, following the teamwork meeting, the students agreed tore-read the article and work individually to prepare for their particular parts of thepresentation, given one week later. Their study notes and the presentation itself weredocumented, and it is these two sources of data that are focused on in this section.Specifically, the process followed by Gisela is put under the spotlight.

The analysis reveals that when re-reading the article following the teamwork meeting,all students took notes in the margins, often in their L1, and highlighted or underlinedcertain sections. However, it is interesting to note that on her copy of the article, Giselamade some annotations defining two of the terms that emerged as problematic during theteamwork interaction analysed in the previous section in Catalan: ‘aspirations’ and‘expectations’ (Figure 6). Her definitions are a reformulation/translation of those thatwere constructed by the group in Fragment 4, analysed above. She describes aspirationsas being ‘algo més idealista’ (‘a little more idealistic’) and expectations as ‘algo mésrealista’ (‘a little more realistic’). Gisela thus displays her plurilingual incorporation oflearning objects from the teamwork meeting in her individual, written work.

Finally, during Gisela’s intervention in the group presentation, the last step in the taskprocess, she has the job of narrating the results of the experiment referred to in the articlewith the support of slides in English and some handwritten notes, also in that language

Figure 6. Gisela’s notes on her copy of the article.

602 E. Moore

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

(Figure 7). In her notes, reproduced below for ease of reading, Gisela circles the sameterms that were defined during the teamwork meeting and annotated on her copy of thearticle (‘aspired’, line 2; ‘expectations’, line 5; ‘expected’, line 9), thus displaying hercontinued attention to the appropriate meaning and use of the psychological variables. Ashift is observed, however, in Gisela’s exclusive use of English.

Reproduction of Gisela’s handwritten notes (see Figure 7):

1 As we can see in the results of RIASEC, the aspired categories that

2 were most frequently aspired were → Investigative, Social and

3 Realistic. and Enterprising and Conventional were asp least

4 frequently aspired.

5 For expectations the results are more or least the same xx because

6 x the categories more expected were Social, Realistic and

7 Investigative but with different (percentajes) percentajes, and

8 another time conventional and entrerprising categories were least

9 the categories x least expected by students.

Fragment 5 provides further evidence of how Gisela appropriates the problematised termsin her discourse during her part of the presentation. Moreover, it illustrates a clear changein the way Gisela positions herself in terms of her expertise in managing thepsychological content and her participation in the target language. Interestingly, inFragment 5, the same two terms that have previously emerged – ‘aspirations’ and

Figure 7. Gisela’s notes during the presentation.

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 603

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

‘expectations’ – are focused on by the teacher (Neus: NEU) as central to the students’learning. She interrupts Gisela during her speech (line 13) and asks her to explain thedifference between them (lines 17–20).

Fragment 5

1 GIS: ok\ (0.8) as we can see in the results of RIASEC\ (0.6) ah

2 categories that were most frequently expect- a:h aspirate\

3 (0.3) by: students were investigative/ (0.5) social and

4 realistic\ (0.7) and the categories that were least aspired by

5 students were enterprising and conventional\ (0.9) a:h for

6 expectations happened more or less the same because the

7 categories that were most expected by students/ (0.6) were

8 social realistic and investigative\ (0.2) but with different

9 percentage\ (0.5) and the categories that were mo:- (0.6) hm:

10 less ex- EXPECT by students were conventional/ (0.3)

11 conventional and enterprising\ (0.8) categories\

12 (0.8)

13 NEU: gisela\

14 (0.6)

15 GIS: yes\

16 (0.3)

17 NEU: can you remind us (0.3) what’s the difference (0.5) between

18 the aspirations=

19 GIS: =oh yes\=

20 NEU: =and the expectations\

21 (0.2)

22 GIS: aspirations is more idealistic (0.7) it’s e:h what you aspire

23 to do in: (0.5) in your life and expectation is e:h more

24 realistic\

25 (1.5)

26 NEU: very good\

In response to the teacher’s question, Gisela contrasts the two concepts in English,producing definitions that are very similar to the ones reached both collaboratively in thegroup work discussion and, also, to those she had noted in Catalan on her copy of thearticle (lines 22–24). The teacher’s acceptance of those definitions (‘very good’, line 26)makes it apparent that the task has been successfully completed. That is to say, Gisela hasprogressed to a position of an expert in handling the knowledge at hand in unilingualmode; not only does she display her understanding of the concepts, but she alsodemonstrates her ability to articulate definitions in fluent, public discourse in English.

The analysis in this section, therefore, not only provides evidence of longitudinaldevelopment in terms of Gisela’s grasp of the learning objects and her related shifting role

604 E. Moore

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

in completing the task. By focusing on her translanguaging practices, it also lends supportto the argument that the plurilingual mode, or the possibility of mobilising resources fromdifferent languages, scaffolds successful accomplishment of learning tasks in an L2. Thatis, when focusing on the objects oriented to by the group (4.1) and on the processfollowed by Gisela in expertly incorporating those objects into her discourse in English(4.2), a shift is observed from group and individual work done in plurilingual mode to aunilingual final product.

5. Conclusions

The preceding analysis and discussion demonstrate the utility of the theoretical-analyticalframework constructed in this article to support both situated and longitudinal argumentsfor learning, based on both SC and EM/conversation analytic insights into cognition. Onthe one hand, the analysis suggested that students primarily focalised learning objectsfrom their discipline, or the subject density, over the course of task completion. In caseswhere the remediation of language problems, or opacity, was traced, this work on thesecond language was seen to emerge in sequential environments in which the students’attention was primarily directed at the subject knowledge required for successfulcompletion of the task. Such findings help legitimise the use of a second language forlearning academic content, as it seems the latter remains participants’ primary concern.

On the other hand, in constructing such knowledge, and despite languages besidesEnglish, not being explicitly contemplated as potential resources for their learning, theanalysis revealed how students mobilised their L1 in facilitating their access to learningobjects. Furthermore, by taking a longitudinal perspective in examining the data, inspiredin part by CoP and language socialisation approaches and focusing on the participationover time of one student, changes were noted in terms of how plurilingual competencewas mobilised and legitimacy was accomplished in terms of second language and contentknowledge. In this regard, Figure 8 is representative in summarising the flow observedfrom plurilingual to eventual unilingual modes of participation in the task. Theseobservations lend support to arguments in favour of plurilingualism in L2 immersionuniversity settings as a resource ensuring participation and facilitating clarification,conceptualisation and saturation of emerging knowledge objects (see also Gajo andBerthoud 2008; Moore, Nussbaum, and Borràs 2013).

Ultimately, this paper aims to contribute to a greater understanding of how knowledgeis constructed and of how learning may be studied from both situated and longitudinalperspectives in the complex context of multilingual, ‘internationalised’ universityclassrooms. Similar studies are currently scarce in the literature, although such scenariosare becoming increasingly widespread in European higher education – and elsewhere –and call for a closer examination. Furthermore, returning to the broader issue of

Figure 8. Process of plurilingual knowledge construction in completing task.

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 605

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

internationalisation and the growing introduction of English with which this article began,the results provide grassroots insights into how such strategies may be achieved inharmony with existing plurilingual dynamics at European universities and beyond.

AcknowledgementsSincere thanks to the teachers and students who agreed to participate in this research and to thecolleagues who commented on previous versions of this text.

FundingSupport was received for the production of this article from the Spanish Ministry of Science andInnovation R+D+i project DALE-APECS, project reference: EDU2010-15783.

Notes1. The terms first language (L1) and second language (L2) are used in the paper only to facilitate

description. In some cases, participants in the research are bilingual L1 users and the L2 is theirthird or fourth language.

2. This claim is based on data collected ethnographically, through semi-structured interviews andinformal discussions with the teacher. Such data, however, is not central to the objectives ofthis paper and is, therefore, not presented here.

3. The term plurilingualism is used to refer to individual competences or to the emergence ofmore than one language within the same interaction. The term multilingualism is used toacknowledge the social or institutional presence of two or more languages; for example, inpolicy documents or degree programs.

ReferencesAlber, J.-L., and B. Py. 1985. “Interlangue et conversation exolingue [Interlanguage and ExolingualConversation].” Cahiers du Departement des Langues et des Sciences du Langage 1, Lausanne:Université de Lausanne.

Auer, P. 1984. Bilingual Conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Auer, P. 1998. “Introduction: Bilingual Conversation Revisited.” In Code-switching in Conversa-tion: Language, Interaction and Identity, edited by P. Auer, 1–24. New York: Routledge.

Bange, P. 1992. “À propos de la Communication et de l’Apprentissage de L2 [On L2Communication and Learning].” AILE 1: 53–85.

Barwell, R. 2003. “Patterns of Attention in the Interaction of a Primary School MathematicsStudent with English as an Additional Language.” Educational Studies in Mathematics 53 (1):35–59. doi:10.1023/A:1024659518797.

Barwell, R. 2005. “Integrating Language and Content: Issues from the Mathematics Classroom.”Linguistics and Education 16 (2): 205–218. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2006.01.002.

Becker, A. 1995. Beyond Translation: Essays towards a Modern Philology. Ann Arbor, MI:University of Michigan Press.

Brouwer, C. E. 2003. “Word Searches in NNS–NS Interaction: Opportunities for LanguageLearning?” The Modern Language Journal 87 (4): 534–545. doi:10.1111/1540-4781.00206.

Brouwer, C. E., and J. Wagner. 2004. “Developmental Issues in Second Language Conversation.”Journal of Applied Linguistics 1 (1): 29–47. doi:10.1558/japl.1.1.29.55873.

Cook, V. J. 1991. “The Poverty-of-the-Stimulus Argument and Multi-Competence.” SecondLanguage Research, 7 (2): 103–117. doi:10.1177/026765839100700203.

Cook, V. 2007. “The nature of the L2 user.” EUROSLA Yearbook 7 (1): 205–220. doi:10.1075/eurosla.7.12coo.

Coulter, J. 1991. “Cognition: Cognition in Ethnomethodological Mode.” In Ethnomethodology andthe Human Sciences, edited by C. Button, 176–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

De Pietro, J.-F., M. Matthey, and B. Py. 1989. “Acquisition et Contrat Didactique: les SéquencesPotentiellement Acquisitionnelles de la Conversation Exolingue [Acquisition and DidacticContract: Potential Acquisition Sequences in Exolingual Conversation].” In Actes du TroisièmeColloque Régional de Linguistique [Proceedings of the Third Regional Linguistics Colloquim],

606 E. Moore

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

edited by D. Weil and H. Fugier, 99–124. Strasbourg: Université des Sciences Humaines etUniversité Louis Pasteur.

Duff, P. A. 2007. “Second Language Socialization as Sociocultural Theory: Insights and Issues.”Language Teaching 40 (4): 309–319. doi:10.1017/S0261444807004508.

Duff, P., and M. Kobayashi. 2010. “The Intersection of Social, Cognitive, and Cultural Processes inLanguage Learning: a Second Language Socialization Approach.” In Sociocognitive Perspectiveson Language Use and Language Learning, edited by R. Batstone, 75–93. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Duverger, J. 2007. “Didactiser l’Alternance des Langues en Cours de DNL [Didactisising LanguageAlternation in Non-Language Discipline courses].” Tréma 28: 81–88. http://trema.revues.org/302.

Evnitskaya, N., and T. Morton. 2011. “Knowledge Construction, Meaning-Making and Interactionin CLIL Science Classroom Communities of Practice.” Language and Education 25 (2):109–127. doi:10.1080/09500782.2010.547199.

Firth, A. 1996. “The Discursive Accomplishment of Normality: On ‘Lingua Franca’ English andConversation Analysis?” Journal of Pragmatics 26: 237–259.

Firth, A., and J. Wagner. 1997. “On Discourse, Communication and (Some) Fundamental Conceptsin SLA Research.” The Modern Language Journal 81 (3): 285–300. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05480.x.

Firth, A., and J. Wagner. 2007. “Second/Foreign Language Learning as a Social Accomplishment:Elaborations on a Reconceptualized SLA.” The Modern Language Journal 91 (Focus Issue):800–819. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00670.x.

Gajo, L. 2007. “Linguistic Knowledge and Subject Knowledge: How does Bilingualism Contributeto Subject Development?” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10 (5):563–581.

Gajo, L., and A.-C. Berthoud. 2008. Construction Intégrée des Savoirs Linguistiques etDisciplinaires dans l’Enseignement Bilingue au Secondaire et au Tertiaire. Rapport Final[Integrated Construction of Linguistic and Disciplinary Knowledge in Bilingual Secondary andTertiary Education. Final report]. Fonds national suisse de la recherche scientifique: PNR 56.

Gajo, L., and A. Grobet. 2008. “Interagir en Langue Étrangère dans le Cadre de DisciplinesScolaires: Intégration et Saturation des Savoirs Disciplinaires et Linguistiques dans l’élaborationdes Definitions [Interacting in a Foreign Language in the Framework of School Disciplines:Integration and Saturation of Disciplinary and Linguistic Knowledge in the Elaboration ofDefinitions].” In Processus Interactionnels et Situations Éducatives [Interactional Processes andEducational Situations], edited by L. Filliettaz and M.-L. Schubauer-Leoni, 113–136. Brussels:De Boeck.

García, O. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

García, O., and C. E. Sylvan. 2011. “Pedagogies and Practices in Multilingual Classrooms:Singularities in Pluralities.” The Modern Language Journal 95 (3): 385–400. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01208.x.

Hall, J. K., A. Cheng, and M. T. Carlson. 2006. “Reconceptualising Multicompetence as a Theoryof Language Knowledge.” Applied Linguistics 27 (2): 220–240. doi:10.1093/applin/aml013.

Kasper, G. 2008. “Discourse and Socially Shared Cognition.” In Encyclopedia of Language andEducation, Vol. 6, edited by J. Cenoz and N. H. Hornberger, 59–78. New York: Springer.

Krafft, U., and U. Dausendschön-Gay. 1994. “Analyse Conversationnelle et Recherche surel’Acquisition [Conversation Analysis and Research on Acquisition].” Bulletin VALS/ALSA 59:127–158.

Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Liebscher, G., and J. Dailey-O’Cain. 2005. Learner Code-Switching in the Content-Based ForeignLanguage Classroom. The Modern Language Journal 89 (2): 234–247. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00277.x.

Lüdi, G., and B. Py. 2003. Etre Bilingue [Being Bilingual]. Bern: Peter Lang.Lüdi, G., and B. Py. 2009. “To Be or not to Be … a Plurilingual Speaker.” International Journal ofMultilingualism 6 (2): 154–167. doi:10.1080/14790710902846715.

Markee, N. 2008. “Toward a Learning Behavior Tracking Methodology for CA-for-SLA.” AppliedLinguistics 29 (3): 404–427. doi:10.1093/applin/amm052.

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 607

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Masats, D., L. Nussbaum, and V. Unamuno. 2007. “When Activity Shapes the Repertoire of SecondLanguage Learners.” EUROSLA Yearbook 7 (1): 121–147. doi:10.1075/eurosla.7.08mas.

Mondada, L., and S. Pekarek Doehler. 2000. “Interaction Sociale et Cognition Située: QuelsModèles pour la Recherche sur l’Acquisition des Langues [Social Interaction and SituatedCognition: Some Models for Research on Language Acquisition].” AILE 12: 81–102.

Mondada, L., and S. Pekarek Doehler. 2004. “Second Language Acquisition as Situated Practice:Task Accomplishment in the French Second Language Classroom.” The Modern LanguageJournal 88 (4): 501–518. doi:10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-15-.x.

Mori, J. 2007. “Exploring the Intersection of Second Language Acquisition, Conversation Analysis,and Foreign Language Pedagogy.” Modern Language Journal 91 (5): 847–860.

Mori, J. and M. Hayashi. 2006. “The Achievement of Intersubjectivity through EmbodiedCompletions: a Study of Interactions between First and Second Language Speakers.” AppliedLinguistics 27 (2): 195–219. doi:10.1093/applin/aml014.

Moore, E. 2011. “Plurilingual Interaction at a Catalan University Doing Internationalisation:Context and Learning.” PhD diss., Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. https://www.educacion.gob.es/teseo/mostrarRef.do?ref=941613.

Moore, E., E. Borràs, and L. Nussbaum. 2013. “Plurilingual Resources in Lingua Franca Talk: AnInteractionist Perspective.” In Language Alternation, Language Choice and Language Encounterin International Tertiary Education, edited by H. Haberland, D. Lønsmann, and B. Preisler, 53–84. Dordrecht: Springer.

Moore, E., L. Nussbaum, and E. Borràs. 2013. “Plurilingual Teaching and Learning Practices in‘Internationalised’ University Lectures.” International Journal of Bilingual Education andBilingualism 16 (4): 471–493. doi:10.1080/13670050.2012.702724.

Moschkovich, J. 2002. “A Situated and Sociocultural Perspective on Bilingual MathematicsLearners.” Mathematical Thinking and Learning 4 (2 & 3): 189–212. doi:10.1207/S15327833MTL04023_5.

Nussbaum, L., and V. Unamuno. 2000. “Fluidité et Complexité dans la Construction du Discoursentre Apprenants de Langues Étrangères [Fluency and Complexity in the Construction ofDiscourse between Learners of Foreign Languages].” Acquisition et Interaction en LangueEtrangère 12: 27–49.

Nussbaum, L., and V. Unamuno. 2006. “La Compétence Sociolinguistique, pour Quoi Faire?[Sociolinguistic Competence, for Doing What?].” Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Apliquée 84:47–65.

Olsher, D. 2004. “Talk and Gesture: the Embodied Completion of Sequential Actions in SpokenDiscourse.” In Second Language Conversations, edited by R. Gardner, and J. Wagner, 221–245.London: Continuum.

Patton, W., and P. Creed. 2007. “The Relationship Between Career Variables and OccupationalAspirations/Expectations for Australian High School Adolescents.” Journal of Career Develop-ment 34 (2): 127–148. doi:10.1177/0894845307307471.

Pekarek Doehler, S. 2009. “Mediation Revisited: The Interactive Organization of Mediation inLearning Environments.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 9 (1): 22–42. doi:10.1207/S15327884MCA0901_03.

Py, B. 1986. “Making Sense: Interlanguage’s Intertalk in Exolingual Conversation.” Studies inSecond Language Acquisition 8 (3): 343–353. doi:10.1017/S0272263100006355.

Py, B. 2007. “Apprendre une Langue et Devenir Bilingue: un Eclairage Acquisitionniste sur lesContacts de Langues [Learning a Language and Becoming Bilingual: an AquisitionalIllumination on Language Contact].” Journal of Language Contact THEMA 1: 93–100.doi:10.1163/000000007792548369.

Schegloff, E. A., G. Jefferson, and H. Sacks. 1977. “The Preference for Self-correction in theOrganization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53: 361–382.

Smit, U. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca in Higher Education: A Longitudinal Study ofClassroom Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Ustunel, E., and P. Seedhouse. 2005. “Why That, in That Language, Right Now? Code-Switchingand Pedagogical Focus.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15 (3): 302–325. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00093.x.

Vygotsky, L. 1934/1986. Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

608 E. Moore

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Wood, D., J. S., Bruner, and G. Ross. 1976. “The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving.” Journal ofChild Psychology and Child Psychiatry 17 (2): 89–100. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x.

Young, R. F., and E. R. Miller 2004. “Learning as Changing Participation: Discourse Roles in ESLWriting Conferences.” The Modern Language Journal 88 (4): 519–535. doi:10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.t01-16-.x.

Appendix 1. Transcription conventions

1. Speaker: ABC:2. Unidentified speaker: STU3. Intonation:

a. Falling: \b. Rising: /

4. Pauses:b. Timed: (no seconds)a. Micro (less than a tenth of a second): (.)

5. Overlapping: [text]6. Latching: =7. Interruption: text-8. Lengthening of a sound: te:xt9. EMPHATIC10. °soft°11. Incomprehensible fragment: xxxx12. Dubious transcription: (text?)13. Language:

a. Catalanb. Englishc. Spanishd. Could be Catalan or Spanish

14. Continuation of a previous turn: speaker>15. Transcriber’s comments: ((comment))16. Translation below a turn: &ABC:17. Approximate instant when video still was taken: fig. 1

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 609

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

00 1

1 N

ovem

ber

2014