Learner Centred Discourse. Anton

8/13/2019 Learner Centred Discourse. Anton

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/learner-centred-discourse-anton 1/17

The Discourse of a Learner-Centered Classroom: Sociocultural Perspectives on Teacher-LearnerInteraction in the Second-Language ClassroomAuthor(s): Marta AntónSource: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 83, No. 3 (Autumn, 1999), pp. 303-318

Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the National Federation of Modern LanguageTeachers AssociationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/330255

Accessed: 20/11/2008 08:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating

with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/330255?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/330255?origin=JSTOR-pdf



h eDiscourse

oLearner Centered

Classroom ociocultural Perspectives

o Teacher Learnernteraction i n

t h Second Languagelassroom

MARTA ANTON

Department fForeignLanguages& Cultures

Indiana University-Purdue niversity,

Indianapolis425 UniversityBoulevard

Indianapolis,IN 46202

Email:[email protected]

This study investigates learner-centered and teacher-centered discourse in interactive ex-changes between teachers and learners in the second language (L2) classroom. The analysisof interaction shows that learner-centered discourse provides opportunities for negotiation (ofform, content, and classroom rules of behavior), which creates an environment favorable toL2 learning. In contrast, teacher-centered discourse is shown to provide rare opportunities fornegotiation. Placing the analysiswithin the context of the role of discourse in the mediation

of cognitive development, a central point in sociocultural theory, this study demonstrates thatwhen learners are engaged in negotiation, language is used to serve the functions of scaffold-ing (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976) and to provide effective assistance as learners progress inthe zone of proximal development (Vygotsky,1978). The analysis presented here attempts toshow how various communicative moves and linguistic forms are deployed to achieve thesefunctions.

INTRODUCTION

Current foreign and second language (L2)

teaching methodologies based on Communica-

tive Language Teaching (CLT) suggest that thereis a benefit in switching from the traditionalteacher-centered class to a learner-centered class-room setting. One of the main differences withtraditional ways of teaching languages lies in therole of teacher and learner. The communicative

approach shifts the focus to the learner in several

aspects of classroom instruction: The curriculumreflects the needs of the learner, the activities

engage learners in communication (involving in-formation sharing and negotiation of meaning),

The Modern Language Journal, 83, iii, (1999)0026-7902/99/303-318 $1.50/0?1999 TheModernLanguage ournal

and the teacher's role is that of facilitator in thecommunication process (Nunan, 1989).

CLT advocates having students work in small

groups in order to maximize their opportunitiesfor communicative practice. Acting as a guide of

procedures and activities during communicative

activities, the teacher is responsible for estab-

lishing situations that are likely to promote com-munication. The role of the learner is that of acommunicator: Students interact with others,

they are actively engaged in negotiation of mean-

ing, they have an opportunity to express them-selves by sharing ideas and opinions, and they are

responsible for their own learning. CLT calls,then, for a very active role for learners in the

classroom and increased responsibility for theirown learning (Breen, 1991; Larsen-Freeman,1986; Nunan, 1988). The new role of the studentas negotiator between the self, the learning pro-cess, and the object of learning implies that he



304

should contribute as much as he gains, and

thereby learn in an independent way (Breen &

Candlin, 1980, p. 110).

Conversely, in traditional approaches, class-

room teaching is conceptualized as the transmis-

sion of knowledge from the teacher to the passivelearner (Adair-Hauck, Donato, & Cumo, 1994;

Chaudron, 1988). The teacher is the authority in

the classroom. Students do as the teacher says,so

that the teacher's knowledge can be transmitted

to them. In this type of classroom, teacher-stu-

dent interaction is minimal and is dominated bythe teacher (Larsen-Freeman, 1986; Lo6rscher,

1986).

Although the literature describes this changeof focus and its apparent benefits, teachers often

feel that there is little mention of how innova-tions might be implemented within an existingeducational context (Katz, 1996).

The present study extends the commonly held

view of learner-centeredness among classroom

teachers beyond a mere provision for more

paired or group activities in the language class-

room by addressing the question of how the new

role of the learner can be implemented throughteacher-learner interaction. By contrastingteacher-learner discourse from both teacher-cen-

tered and learner-centered classrooms, I will at-

tempt to characterize learner-centered discourse

within the context of the role of discourse in

cognitive development. The main argument of

this study is that teachers can engage learners in

the negotiation of meaning, language forms, and

classroom rules by using various discursive moves,and in so doing can also promote learners' active

mental participation, which may have a role in L2

learning.Interaction, participation, and negotiation cre-

ate learning opportunities in the L2 classroom

(Van Lier, 1991). The microanalysis of classroomdiscourse allows us to witness how language is

used as a mediation tool in the learning process

(Donato, 1994; Donato & Lantolf, 1990; Kowal&

Swain, 1994), a main area of inquiry in the so-

ciocultural theory of mind based on the work of

the Russian psychologist, L. S. Vygotsky (1978,1979, 1981, 1986), his colleagues, and other con-

temporary sociocultural researchers (Werstch1980, 1985, 1991). Sociocultural theory providesan ideal framework to analyze classroom interac-

tion because one of its main principles is that

cognitive development, and thus learning, origi-nates in a social context (such as the language

classroom). Effective interaction uses language as

a psychological tool to serve assisting functions in

problem-solving situations. Thus, through dia-

TheModernLanguage ournal 83 (1999)

logue, teachers can provide learners with effec-

tive assistance that will enable them to perform at

higher levels than they would otherwise. The fol-

lowing section provides background on some im-

portant notions in sociocultural theory that are

relevant to this study.

SOCIOCULTURALTHEORY,SCAFFOLDING,AND THE ZONE OF PROXIMALDEVELOPMENT

Vygotskymaintained that higher psychologicalfunctions originate in interaction between indi-

viduals (interpsychological level) before they are

transferred within the individual (intrapsy-

chological level). In Vygotsky's view, human ac-

tion is mediated by technical and psychologicaltools or signs, such as language, the most power-ful of semiotic systems. The mastery of tools, par-

ticularly psychological tools, mediates the trans-

formation of basic mental functions into highermental functions (voluntary attention, logical

memory, formation of concepts, etc.). The trans-

fer of functions from the social plane to the cog-nitive plane occurs within the zone of proximal

development (ZPD), which is defined as

the differencebetween the child's developmental

level as determinedby the independent problemsolvingandthehigher evelof potentialdevelopmentas determined hroughproblemsolvingunderadult

guidance or in collaborationwith more capablepeers.(Vygotsky,978,p. 86)

A novice learns under the guidance of an ex-

pert who provides support in the completion of

the task by adjusting the difficulty of the task

(Radziszewska & Rogoff, 1991; Wertsch, Minick,& Arns, 1984). In working within the ZPD, it is

not the successful completion of the task that is

of importance, but the higher cognitive processthat emerges as a result of the interaction (Lan-tolf & Appel, 1994, p. 10).

Teaching may be viewed as assisting perfor-mance through the Zone of Proximal Develop-ment (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), where, in col-

laboration with others, another person controls

one's behavior (a case of other-regulation) until

learners become self-regulated and eventually

performance becomes automatized. Thus, the

ZPD constitutes a potential for learning that is

created in the interaction between participants in

particular settings (Wells, 1998, p. 345).In the ZPD, the expert (teacher or another

peer) offers scaffolded assistance to the learner,

providing a framework to solve the problem. The

scaffold assists the learner in carrying out new



Marta Anton

components of the task which the learner would

not be able to complete without assistance (Ro-

goff & Gardner, 1984). Wood, Bruner, & Ross

(1976) use the metaphor of scaffolding to refer

to the expert's control of elements of the task that

are above the learner's ability, thus allowing thelearner to focus on those elements of the taskthat

are within his or her capacity. The help that the

expert provides the novice is characterized by six

scaffolding functions:

1. Recruitment: enlisting the learner's interest

in the task

2. Reduction in degrees of freedom: simplify-

ing the task

3. Direction maintenance: keeping the learner

motivated and in pursuit of the goal4. Marking critical features: highlighting cer-

tain relevant features and pointing out discrepan-cies between what has been produced and the

ideal solution

5. Frustration control: reducing stress and frus-

tration during problem solving6. Demonstration: modeling an idealized form

of the act to be performed by completing the act

or by explicating the learner's partial solution

(Wood et al., 1976, p. 98)

Although the concept of ZPD and the meta-

phor of scaffolding were originally constructed todescribe child development in interaction withadults in first language situations, they are usefulin analyzing L2 learning situations, as well. How-

ever, the current view of the ZPD has been ex-

panded beyond novice-expert interaction. Ac-

cording to Wells (1998, p. 345) the ZPD as an

opportunity for learning with and from others

applies potentially to all participants, and not

simply to the less skillful or knowledgeable. In-

deed, several empirical studies of L2 learning

situations show that, in collaborative interactionbetween language learners, assistance can be pro-vided equally between nonexperts (e.g., Donato,1994; Ohta, 1995; Swain & Lapkin, 1998).

Stone (1993) points out the need to specify thecommunicative mechanisms involved in scaf-folded interaction, mechanisms which are criticalto Vygotsky'stheoretical framework. He acknowl-

edges that the semiotics of scaffolding are com-

plex, involving such communicative mechanismsas conversational implicature, prolepsis, presup-positional triggers, and other nonverbal commu-

nicative devices such as gestures, pauses, and soforth.

The concept of prolepsis is important in under-

standing interaction within the ZPD. Accordingto Rommetveit (1974, 1979), prolepsis refers to a

communicative move which indicates presupposi-tion of some information on the part of the

speaker. It is argued that presupposition chal-

lenges the listener to make some assumptions in

order to interpret the intended meaning of the

speaker's utterance. Thus, in the dialogic process,

prolepsis leads the participants in the interaction

to reach an understanding of each other's view of

problem and solution. Stone (1993) states that

prolepsis can be understood as aspecial type of

conversational implicature in which the neces-

sary context is specified after he utterance rather

than before it (p. 174). He adds that, by chal-

lenging the listener to reconstruct the speaker's

view, prolepsis introduces an element of tension

in the communicative exchange which may have

the effect of transforming the situation.Adhering to the view that scaffolded interac-

tion within the ZPD leads to cognitive develop-ment, this study tries to shed light on the verbal

and nonverbal devices deployed in teacher-

learner interaction to achieve the functions of

scaffolding.A growing number of studies have applied the

sociocultural framework to the investigation of

L2 acquisition (Lantolf, 1994; Lantolf & Appel,1994; Schinke-Llano, 1993). Of particular inter-

est to the present study are those that have con-cerned themselves with the analysis of classroom

discourse. Studies of learner-learner collabora-

tive dialogue in the production of oral (Brooks &

Donato, 1994; Donato, 1994; Ohta, 1995; Platt &

Brooks, 1994) or written tasks (Ant6n & Di-

Camilla, 1998; De Guerrero & Villamil, 1994; Di-

Camilla & Ant6n, 1997; Kowal & Swain, 1994;

Swain, 1997; Villamil & De Guerrero, 1996) havefocused on uncovering how learners use speaking

activity as a cognitive tool for linguistic develop-ment.

Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) showed how ne-

gotiation of corrective feedback in the ZPD dur-

ing tutorial sessions promotes learning. Donatoand Adair-Hauck (1992) and Adair-Hauck andDonato (1994) studied teacher-learner interac-tion during the presentation of grammatical con-

cepts, showing how formal explanations can becoconstructed by teacher and learners through a

negotiation process.

Addressing similar issues, the present study ofinteraction in L2 classrooms builds on previous

studies by focusing on the discursive devices usedby teachers in learner-centered classrooms toachieve the functions of scaffolding and, thus, toconstruct effective scaffolded assistance withinthe ZPD.

305



306

THE INSTRUCTIONALCONTEXTS

The following data come from observation of

first-year university French and Italian classes

throughout a semester.1

The Italian class was structured in three com-ponents: grammar explanation, exercise correc-

tion, and oral practice. The presentation of a new

grammatical item was often accomplished

through a small dialogue that the instructor read

while the students listened and repeated chorally.Then, the instructor read the grammar sections

and examples, which were frequently repeatedaloud by the students. After the grammar expla-nation, some exercises were corrected by askingeach student to read one sentence. The type of

exercises were: fill-in-the-blank with the correct

grammatical form, substitution drills, and transla-

tion of English sentences into Italian. The last 5

or 10 minutes of the class were devoted to oral

practice through personalized questions that al-

most invariably came from the instructor. There

was no group or pair work throughout the semes-

ter. This description fits the characteristics of a

teacher-centered approach.The French class was a second-semester ele-

mentary French course. In general, three compo-nents can also be distinguished in this class:gram-

matical explanation, practice of structures, andoral practice. Despite observed similarities in the

organization of classroom activities, the role of

teacher and learner can be clearly differentiated

in these two instructional contexts. Both the typeof activities used and the interaction patternswere consistent with learner-centered approachesto language teaching. The bulk of class time was

devoted to language use through some control-

led practice of grammatical structures and com-

municative-oriented paired or group activities,such as interviews and conversations

followinginstructions on conversation cards.

DATAANALYSIS

In what follows I will focus on four relevant

themes that emerged from the analysis: the dis-

course of formal instruction, providing feedback,

allocating turns, and discussing learners' prefer-ences and strategies.2

The Discourse ofFormal Instruction:

Consciousness-Raising of Grammatical Forms

Explicit presentation of formal features of the

language is a reality in many L2 classrooms (Gass,

1991). However, until recently, formal instruction

The Modern Language Journal 83 (1999)

had not received much attention in Second Lan-

guage Acquisition (SLA) Foreign Language Ac-

quisition (FLA) research, partly because influen-

tial theoretical and methodological positions saw

little or no role for explicit teaching of grammarand error correction in SLA.

The interactionist position in SLA research

maintained that negotiation of meaning when

learners are engaged in communicative activities

is crucial for L2 acquisition. This position is influ-

enced by Krashen's comprehensible input hy-

pothesis, which claims that input that is compre-hensible to the learner triggers language

acquisition (Krashen, 1980, 1982; Krashen & Ter-

rell, 1983). Early research on negotiation in the

language classroom focused on negotiation of

meaning and how negotiation makes input com-prehensible in learner-learner (Gass & Varonis,

1985, 1986; Long & Porter, 1985; Pica, 1987; Por-

ter, 1986; Varonis & Gass, 1985) and teacher-

learner interaction (Chaudron, 1986; Ellis, 1985;

Long & Sato, 1983; Pica, 1987, 1991; Pica &

Doughty, 1985, 1988; Pica &Long, 1986; Rulon &

McCreary,1986; Wong Fillmore, 1985). Some re-

searchers pointed out that comprehensible inputalone is not enough to produce language acquisi-tion and that there is a need for SLA research to

focus on output and other aspects of classroom

interaction (Swain, 1985). Swain (1997) main-

tains that, besides enhancing fluency, outputserves other functions, such as raising conscious-

ness about linguistic forms, testing learners' hy-

potheses about language, and leading learners to

reflect about language.Recent research on form-focused instruction

has shown that learners' engagement in commu-

nicative tasks in the classroom leads not only to

negotiation of the meaning of the message, but

also to the negotiation of form (Doughty & Wil-

liams, 1998; Kowal & Swain, 1994; Lightbown &Spada, 1990; Pica, 1994; Swain, 1996), with learn-

ers focusing on how to express messages accu-

rately. Spada (1997) describes form-focused in-

struction as a pedagogical effort which is used to

draw the learners' attention to language form

either implicitly or explicitly (p. 73).3 Research

on negotiation of form, whether between teacher

and learner or in pair work, shows that learners

can successfully focus on both form and meaningand suggests that focus on form has a positiveeffect on language acquisition (Long, 1996; Lys-

ter &Ranta, 1997; Nobuyoshi &Ellis, 1993; Swain& Lapkin, 1995). This conclusion is also reached

by research on collaborative interaction con-

ducted from a Vygotskyan perspective, which

shows how learners working in a collaborative



Marta Ant6n

task negotiate message and form and provide as-

sistance to each other in the production of mean-

ingful and accurate messages (Ant6n & Di-

Camilla, 1998; De Guerrero & Villamil, 1994;DiCamilla &Ant6n, 1997; Donato, 1994; Kowal&

Swain, 1994; Ohta, 1995; Swain, 1997; Villamil &

De Guerrero, 1996).The episodes4 of teacher-learner interaction

presented below illustrate how attention to lin-

guistic form in the presentation of grammatical

points is achieved in two different instructional

contexts. The focus of the analysis is the negotia-tion that unfolds in the interaction and the com-

municative moves used by the teachers to pro-vide scaffolded assistance to learners within the

ZPD.

In the first episode (Episode 1) we observe howthe French teacher (T) encourages learners (S1,

S2, S3)to think about the form of the languageand to reach an understanding of grammaticalforms.

Episode 1

French class (after reading some examplesfrom the textbook)

1. T: So, alors, qu 'est-cequi se passe ici ? Quelle est

la difference ici? Quelle difference est-cequevous pouvez remarquer ici dans les trois ex-

emples?

(So, what's happening here? What's the

difference? What difference can you see

in these three examples?)2. S1: etre.

(to be.)3. T: etre, oui, on utilise le verbeetre, n'est-cepas?

Pour former le passe composse, n 'est-cepas?

Est-ce qu'il y a d'autres differences que vous

pouvez remarquer?(To be, yes, we use the verb to be,right?In order to form the past, right? Anyother difference that you can see?)

4. S2: new verbs

5. T: oui, rentrer c'est nouveau, n'est-ce pas?Rentrer for the verb to return, right? Ren-

trer D'autres, il y a d'autres differences quevous pouvez remarquer? . . Si non, c'estpasun probleme. On va essayer la reponse d ces

questions....

(Yes, rentrers new, right? Rentreror the

verb to return,right? Any other, is thereany other difference that you can see? .. . If not, no problem. We are going to

practice the answer to these questions. .

(Focus on form interrupted by oral practicewith some questions that include etre n the past,then focus on form resumes)

6. S3: There is something new in the third

form, they add an s.7. T: That's good, that's good, the third one

[reading] Paul et Karine . ..

8. S3: because, because it's plural.9. T: that's good.

10. S3: that's new.

11. T: good, so, she is seeing here Paul et

Karine, right? Good, so sortis notice,there is an s at the end of sortis,so theyare showing agreement now. The end of

your, right? Your past participle, now

they show agreement, there is an s be-

cause she knows it's Paul etKarine, o it's

plural, so we add an s, that's good, that's

what's happening.

In this episode, the teacher uses open-ended

questions to lead learners to reflect on the form

used in the three examples that they have justread and to invite them to verbalize the rule (1,3, 5). The teacher has recruited the learners'

interest (scaffolding function #1). The move

from the epistemological question, What's the

difference? to a question that addresses learners

directly, What difference can you see . .., in turn

1 signals a direct request for the learners to getinvolved in the construction of an explanationfor the linguistic form under study.In turns 3 and5 the teacher acknowledges learners' contribu-

tions by verbalizing in complete sentences the

ideas that their responses suggest. This type of

discourse is similar to the waymothers and other

caretakers talk to children while guiding them in

problem-solving activities (Hickman & Wertsch,1978; Rogoff, 1990). When learners seem unable

to contribute any more differences, the teacherwithholds the explanation and provides more ex-

amples so that learners can reflect on the formsin focus. By moving to an activity that requireslearners to use the grammatical form under

analysis in a meaningful fashion, the teacher is infact keeping the learners motivated to find theanswer to the question posed in turn 1 (scaffold-

ing function #3). A few examples are enough to

sparka solution to the problem. Thus, we see howin turn 6 a student notices a critical feature of thestructure under study: They add an s. To aid

students in the discovery of the rule, the teacherhighlights (scaffolding function #4) the phrasethat determines the addition of an s in the verbform. At this point, simply reading Paul etKarine

(7) is enough assistance for the student to dis-

307



308

cover the function of the added s (8): Because

it's plural. Once the learners have constructed

an explanation for the rule, the teacher explains,as confirmation of the hypothesis formulated bythe learners (11). This summary, or reflective s-

sessment, f the knowledge that students have col-

lectively constructed under the scaffolding pro-vided by the teacher is characteristic of mothers

interacting with children during problem-solvingtasks (Wertsch & Hickmann, 1987, cited in Ro-

goff, 1990, p. 204).We have witnessed, in this episode, a grammar

presentation in which the teacher, through her

interaction with the learners, has constructed ef-

fective assistance (a scaffold) for the learners to

find the solution to the problem presented to

them. Throughout the interaction, the teacherguided learners to notice consciously the linguis-tic form under attention, a procedure that mayfacilitate a restructuring of the learners' gram-mar (Gass, 1991).

The kind of grammatical presentation illus-

trated in the above episode, known as dialogic or

proleptic teaching (Donato &Adair-Hauck, 1992;

Rogoff & Gardner, 1984), does not readily fit in

traditional inductive/deductive, implicit/explicitdichotomies because

neither approach acknowledges the critical role ofthe teacher in negotiating classroom grammar expla-

nations; and neither approach acknowledges the cog-nitive contributions which the learners bring to the

instructional setting. In other words, neither explicitnor implicit instruction acknowledges the potentialcollaborative and constructive process created be-

tween teacher and learners during classroom instruc-

tion. (Adair-Hauck& Donato, 1994, p. 533)

In an inductive presentation, learners' atten-

tion is focused on structures so that they can

hypothesize by themselves about linguistic pat-terns; whereas in proleptic or dialogic teaching,the teacher, through responsive dialogue, as-

sists the students in hypothesis construction (Do-nato & Adair-Hauck, 1992). Shaffer (1989) ac-

knowledges that providing opportunities for

assistance from the teacher and peers duringclass discussion could be especially helpful in an

inductive approach.

Proleptic instruction is placed somewhere

along the inductive/deductive continuum. It in-

tegrates given explanations (characteristic of de-

ductive approaches) with demonstration, whileplacing a central role in the learner's participa-tion in the instructional activity (Rogoff & Gard-

ner, 1984). Through the negotiation that unfolds

in the interaction presented in Episode 1, teacher

TheModernLanguage ournal 83 (1999)

and learners are constructing a shared under-

standing of the language forms under discussion.

But the interaction does not only reveal negotia-tion of language forms; there is also negotiationof responsibility for solving the problem. This

transfer of responsibility from the teacher to thelearner is an essential feature of proleptic instruc-

tion.

The quantity and quality of learners' involve-

ment in the interaction presented in the first

episode contrasts sharply with that of the follow-

ing episode. In Episode 2, the Italian instructor

has presented some vocabulary and has read sev-

eral times a dialogue that students have repeated

chorally. Now, he is presenting a teacher-centered

explanation of the grammatical point of the les-

son.

Episode 2

1. T: In this lesson you are doing two impor-tant things primarily. We are learning

possessive adjectives and another pasttense. The Imperfect tense. You've al-

ready had the PassatoProssimo.They are

both past tenses but they have different

uses in Italian. Intricate for the speakerof English, not so intricate for speakers

of other Romance languages. Let's talkabout possessives first. What's the word

for book?

2. Ss: Libro.

3. T: What's the word for house?

4. Ss: Casa.

5. T: OK. Let's get a masculine and singular.Thebook?

6. Ss: Illibro.

7. T: The house?

8. Ss: La casa.

9. T: That's correct. Now we have a masculineand a feminine. Masculine article il

feminine la. We've also learnt that adjec-tives agree with the nouns they modify.

Adjectives agree with nouns they modify

[louder]. An adjective agrees with the

noun it modifies. That was importantuntil now, but it becomes more impor-tant now in this lesson, so, the . . . the

beautifulbookl bel ibro, hebeautifulhouse

la bella casa.Now we are going to adjec-tives, possessive adjectives, possessive ad-

jectives. Adjectives are words which de-scribe other words, other nouns,

pronouns or other adjectives. The beauti-

ful book,beautiful s an adjective, the red

book, red s an adjective modifying book.



Marta Anton

Possessives in English and Italian are

also adjectives, possessive adjectives. My

house, my is a possessive in Italian, it's

next to the noun, it is also an adjective.

Now, what did we just say? Adjectives

agree with the thing modified. My book,il mio libro. This book s red, il mio libroe

rosso.My house s white, a mia casa,adjec-tives agree with the noun they modify[louder]. So, when you are saying my

book,and myhouse,adjectives agree with

the noun they modify. Okay, that's for

all of them: mythings,your things, his or

herthings,ourthings,your things,and their

things. [Writing paradigm on the board]II mio libro,il tuo libro, l suo libro,la mia

casa, la tua casa, la sua casa. (My book,your book, his or her book, my house,

your house, his or her house.) Mybooks, my books, i miei,i miei libri,i tuoi

libri,i suoi libri,le miecase,le tue case.(My

(plural form), my books, your books, his

or her books, my houses, your houses.)

In the episode above, the Italian teacher pre-sents himself as the absolute possessor of knowl-

edge that he delivers to the learners. What stands

out most clearly is that the teacher dominates the

interaction. The teacher starts in turn 1 withsome framing utterances, stating the grammaticalstructure that will be the focus of the lesson ( Inthis lesson you are doing two important things. .. and Let's talk about possessives first ).Then

the teacher involves learners in a series of ques-tions (1-8). The nature of the questions is not to

assist learners in the resolution of the problem,

namely, how possessive adjectives function in Ital-

ian, but to assess whether they know the Italian

equivalent of the English words that the teacher

will use inhis explanation. Although the ques-tions posed by the teacher may well serve the

function of keeping students' attention (possibly

scaffolding function #1) and may trigger somekind of private mental processing (Donato &

Adair-Hauck, 1992), they do not actively encour-

age learners to reflect on the structure beingstudied because students do not have to produceany outcome. Once the teacher has sample wordsto work on (il libro, a casa), he proceeds to statethe rule and to provide examples. The rule (ad-

jectives agree with the noun they modify) is re-

peated five times in turn 9.During the presentation of the rule (9) there is

only one attempt to involve learners by callingtheir attention through the question 'What did we

just say? (He, of course, means What did I just

say? iven that students have not said anything for

a while). This question is merely a rhetorical de-

vice, not intended as a true question, and as such,it is answered by the teacher himself. The use of

questioning in this episode is clearly differenti-

ated from the type of questions used bythe Frenchteacher in Episode 1, where questioning had the

function of assistinglearners' performance astheymoved through the ZPDby triggering in the learn-

ers' minds cognitive activitythat may not have oc-

curred without the teacher's assistance.

The type of interaction displayed in Episode 2 is

characteristic of adeductive approach to grammar

teaching: Students are given a grammatical expla-nation. Studies of the advantages of a deductive

versus inductive approach to grammar teaching

have not been conclusive up to now (Ellis, 1994).However, it is clear that the role of the learner is

different in both. In Episode 2 the role of the

learner is that of passive receptacle of knowledge

imparted by the teacher. Despite how clearly and

well constructed the teacher's explanation maybe, this type of discourse does not foster active

mental participation on the part of the learner

because the learner, in his or her passive role, is

not challenged with any problem to solve. The

negotiation that we observed in Episode 1 be-

tween teacher and learners is missing in Episode 2.

A psychological disadvantage of the type of in-struction that relies heavily on explanation or

demonstration is that prolepsis playsa less central

role, which reduces the opportunity to encouragethe listener (learner in our case) to consider new

perspectives of the situation (Rommetveit, 1974,

1979). As Tharp and Gallimore (1988) put it, a

teacher who relies on lecture presentation as ex-

emplified in Episode 2 misses the opportunity to

see the images of his pupils' minds projected on

the screen of their language (p. 59).

A further example of the role of teacher andlearner in these two classes is provided by Episode3. Because students in both classes understandand accept that explicit grammatical knowledgeis important, students frequently askquestions on

language forms. In this excerpt, we observe howthe French teacher returns learners' questions tothe class, encouraging learners to respond to

questions from other learners, a technique that

effectively places the responsibility of knowledgeon the learners.

Episode 3

1. T: Ah, OK, so, you are asking when is it eu?2. S1: Yeah, I know it's the past, but I don't

understand how to use it.

309



310

3. T: OK, good. Can anybody give us a sen-

tence where we would want this past par-ticiple eu? . . . Can we think of a sen-

tence? ... In this sentence [pointing at

a sentence on the board] this is totally

incorrect.4. S2: because it's did.

5. T: right, so we have agreed that this is a

different have but she wants to know

just, totally apart from this example,how do we use eu.

6. S3: If you said I had a pizza.7. T: OK, so how do you say it?

8. S3: J'ai eu unepizza.

9. T: Good [writing the sentence on the

board], and the translation?

10. S3: I had a pizza.11. T: I had a pizza, something that was in my

possession, I had a pizza, so that's how

you use it.

In the interaction presented above, we see how

in turn 3 the teacher involves the whole class in

the resolution of the problem presented by Stu-

dent 1 (scaffolding function #1). The use of the

modal verb in the teacher's questions, Canany-

bodygive us a sentence... ? Can wethink ...

(3), serves the function of engaging learners in

the solution of the problem by inviting and chal-

lenging them to focus and reflect on the form

given.5 The teacher uses pauses in an attempt to

involve learners in the search for an example.Given that the attempt fails, in turn 3 as well, the

teacher simplifies the task (scaffolding function

#2) and marks critical features of the form under

study (scaffolding function #4) by pointing out

that it is a past participle and that it is not used

correctly in the sentence on the board. Two stu-

dents voluntarily respond to the teacher's invita-

tion to get involved in answering Student 1'squestion. In turn 4, Student 2 states why the sen-

tence on the board is incorrect, whereas Student

3 in turns 8 and 9 provides an answer for the

question posed by Student 1. Finally, in turn 11,the teacher provides a reflective assessment of the

contribution of the different students.

In this episode, we have seen how, by skillful

use of language, the teacher transfers to the

learners not only the responsibility for their own

learning but also for each other's learning. In

this way, she has managed to turn the classroom

into a community with shared responsibility forlearning.

This approach to responding to learners' ques-tions contrasts with the one observed in the fol-

lowing excerpt from the Italian class.

TheModernLanguageJournal83 (1999)

Episode 4

[Students are correcting a drill exercise that

they had prepared at home.]

1. T: Compragliene.(Buy some for him.)

2. S: Is that gliene attached to compra?Com-

pragliene?(Is that someor himattached to buy?Buysome for him?)

3. T: It has to because you attach the pro-noun, an indirect pronoun to affirm-

ative informal imperatives.

In the Italian class, the teacher answers stu-

dents' questions with grammatical explanations.

The students here are not invited to reflect ac-tively on the use of grammatical structures. This

pattern is consistent with the teacher-centered

view of transmission of knowledge from the

teacher to the learner.

ProvidingFeedback

For some time, there has been widespread sup-

port in the L2 acquisition and pedagogy litera-ture for encouraging learners to self-correct in

the treatment of oral errors (Allwright & Bailey,1991; Chaudron, 1988;VanLier, 1988). The ques-tion of how teachers provide learners with correc-tive feedback and the effectiveness of different

types of feedback has been a major theme in

recent studies on focus on form within a commu-

nicative classroom setting (Lyster, n press; Lyster& Ranta, 1997; Spada, 1997). Lyster and Ranta

(1997) find that corrective feedback that fosters

self-repair, with respect to the language form

used, often leads to negotiation of form in class-

room interaction. Their study argues that self-correction by learners may have a positive effectin L2 acquisition because learners are encour-

aged to confront their errors, which may producerevisions in their hypothesis about the target lan-

guage.The following episodes (Episodes 5 and 6)

show the high level of learners' engagement in

the negotiation of linguistic form when the

teacher encourages learners' self- and other-cor-

rection of oral errors. In Episode 5, below, the

teacher encourages a student to self-correct by

simply using a gesture: raising an eyebrow. Thisnonverbal cue serves the function of letting thestudent know that there is a discrepancy between

what has been produced and the ideal answer

(scaffolding function #4) and has the effect of



Marta Anton

having the student try again and ultimately pro-duce a correct answer without any further help.

Episode 5

1. T: Vous etes allde d la bibliotheque hier?

(Youwent to the library yesterday?)2. S: Non, je ne suis pas. . .

(No, I did not...)

3. T: [raising eyebrow]4. S: Je n'y suis pas...

(I did not (go) there...)

In the following episode, students are engagedin a communicative activity asking questions of

each other. Correction of mistakes emerges as a

collaborative effortinvolving

the whole class. Two

types of learning unfold in the interaction: indi-

vidual learning and collective learning, in which

students work together for the effective learningof their classmates (Freeman, 1992). Through

dialogue, we witness how the teacher shifts

authority and control of the activityof providingfeedback to the class, managing to provide a chal-

lenging, but supportive, environment for learn-

ing and graduating the level of assistance offered

to the learners in order to adjust to their level of

understanding of the form.

Episode 6

1. Si: Vous montez souvent dans votre voiture?

(You ride in your car often?)2. T: Aha, vous montez souvent dans votre voi-

ture?How might you answer that?

(You ride in your car often?)3. S2: Oui, j'ai monte.

(Yes, I rode. [incorrect response])4. T: Is that right?5. S3:

Oui, jesuis

monti? .. . I

am not clearwhether we drop montewith everythingelse or not.

6. T: Repetez la question. [Students laugh]

Ecoutez.

(Repeat the question. Listen.)7. S1: Which one?

8. T: La mime question que tu as dejd posee.

(The same question that you've alreadyasked.)

9. S1: Vous montez souvent dans votre voiture?

(You ride in your car often?)

10. T: Vousmontez.First of all we have to assesswhat tense this is. We have to preservethe same tense. That's.... Workingwith

y is one thing, but we have to keep thetense the same. Vous montez?

11. S4: Present.

12. T: Present, so we wanna keep that in our

answer, so, what you were talking about,is that in the present?

13. S3: No.

14. T: OK. So, now, how do we answer this?

Vous montez souvent dans votre voiture?

(You ride in your car often?)15. S2: Je monte souvent.

(I ride often.)16. T: Right, you hear the conjugation: je

monte. (I ride.) So, now put your y in

there.

17. S2: J'y voiture,no.

[Incorrect response]18. T: Why are you changing the verb?

19. S2: To put the y [Students laugh].20. T: Right, but where does the y go?21. S5: Not the e, the y.22. T: This y [pointing at the form written on

the board].

23. S2: Oh, OK,jy monte[laughing](I ride in it.)

24. T: Oui, j'y monte.

(Yes.I ride in it.)25. S2: Right.

In this episode, five students are engaged in dis-

covering how to answer the question posed in turn1. The teacher provides metacognitive support by

structuring the task. First the teacher determines

the problem to be solved (repetition of the ques-tion in turn 2), and then invites learners to answer

that question (scaffolding function #1). The invi-

tation to respond and, thus, to solve the problem,is accomplished by a question including a modal

verb, Howmight you answer that? (2), which in-

dicates on the social plane an invitation to partici-

pate in the interaction, but on the cognitive plane

a challenge to reflect on linguistic form and pro-vide an accurate response. Student 2 responds (3),but the answer is incorrect, so, byusing a questionthat encourages self- and other-evaluation of the

response, Is that right? (4), and a command

( Ecoutez n turn 6), which makes clear the inten-tion of the teacher to engage other learners in thesolution of the problem, the teacher keeps thelearners motivated to pursue the solution (scaf-

folding function #3). Because the teacher's call forevaluation in turn 4 is not sufficient for the learnerto provide the correct form, who in turn 5 ex-

presses his inability to self-correct, the teachercontinues to provide metacognitive support bysimplifying the task (scaffolding function #2),

breaking it into smaller and manageable steps:identifying the verb tense (10 and 12) and finding

311



312

the right position for y (16). At this point, the help

provided by the teacher becomes very specific in

order to reach the appropriate level of help re-

quired in this case. Explicit direct help is realized

by the use of communicative moves such as direc-

tives ( Wehave to assess what tense... [10], Now

put your y in there [16]). The teacher is con-

stantly gauging the level of help needed by the

learner and graduating the assistance offered ac-

cordingly (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994).6 Once it is

established that the correct response requires the

present tense, and the teacher judges that the

learner may be able to function independently at

this point, specific help is withdrawn, and the

learner is invited to respond ( Howdo we answer

this? ) in turn 14. Two more students, Student 3

and Student 4, have become involved in the solu-tion to the problem. When, in turn 17, Student 2

gives again an incorrect response and immediatelyevaluates negatively the response just given, the

teacher highlights what the problem is now: Whyare you changing the verb? (scaffolding function

#4). The teacher is aided by yet another student

(Student 5), who in turn 21 provides enough help

(scaffolding) for Student 2 to produce the correct

response in turn 24.

This episode provides an excellent example of

learner-centered interaction in the language

classroom. It shows great involvement of students

providing scaffolding for each other and evaluat-

ing themselves and others. Through interaction,the teacher managed to make learning a collabo-

rative effort and to place responsibility for learn-

ing on the members of the classroom community.

Contrasting with this approach, in a teacher-

centered class feedback is direct, immediate, and

it invariably comes from the teacher. The follow-

ing episode illustrates this approach.

Episode 7

1. T: Hai studiatoquestoweekend?Hai studiato

questoweekend?

(Have you studied this weekend? Have

you studied this weekend?)2. S: No.

(No.)3. T: No? Niente?Biologia?Cosa haifatto questo

weekend

(No? Nothing? Biology? What have youdone this weekend?)

4. S: Eh ... Hei andati ...(Ahh ... I have gone [incorrect form]. . .)

5. T: [Whispering] Sono,sonoandata.

(I have, I have gone [correcting])

TheModernLanguageJournal 83 (1999)

6. S: Sono andata a la mia casa.

(I have gone home.)7. T: Dove?Dov'e la tua casa?

(Where, where is your home?)8. S: Eh.. ..InF_

(Eh... In F_ .)9. T: AF _.AF_

([Correcting] A F_ , a F_ .)

(Ant6n, 1996, p. 558)

In this episode, teacher and students are en-

gaged in a communicative activityof question-an-swer format. Questions are posed by the teacher.

When incorrect responses occur (4 and 8), the

teacher immediately provides the correct re-

sponse (6 and 9). Whether the student would

have been able to correct herself, or whether sheunderstands the correction, is not clear. In the

provision of feedback, as in other aspects of this

teacher-centered class, the role of the learner is

passive. There is no negotiation of form: The

teacher provides the correct form and the

learner repeats. It is unclear if this correction

technique is fostering learning, but it is obvious

that there is no negotiation, no give and take

between teacher and learner.

Providing feedback on comprehension errors

also leads to negotiation in a learner-centeredclassroom. In the following excerpt, we can ob-

serve how the French teacher negotiates mean-

ing with a student during an oral exchange.

Episode 8

1. T: S-, ites-vous sortie le week-enddernier?

(Did you go out last weekend?)2. S: [no answer]3. T: Etes-vous ortie?

(Did you go out?)4. S: Je alleeunepiece.

(I went to a play.)5. T: Ah, une piece,c'estbien.A quelleheure tes-

vous rentreed la maison? A quelle heure

etes-vous entree votremaison?

(A play, good. At what time did you re-

turn home? At what time did you return

to your house?)6. S: [no answer]7. T: rentree.

(Returned.)

8. S: sortie.(went out.)

9. T: Aha, je suis sortie,you went out, eta quelleheureest-cequevousites rentree la maison,retournee la maison?



MartaAnt6n

(Aha, I went out, you went out, and at

what time did you return home?)10. S: [no answer]11. T: retournee la maison,a votremaison. Vous

etes retournee.Vousetes sortie, et vous etes

retournee. gesturing](returned home, to your house. You re-

turned. You went out, and you re-

turned.)12. S: a...

(At ...)13. T: d minuit, d une heure ..

(At midnight, at one ...)14. S: a une heure.(laugh)

(at one.)15. T: d une heure,oh, n'est-ce as?

(At one, oh, is that right?)

The teacher question in turn 5 poses a compre-hension problem for the student, who is unableto answer in turn 6. To aid the student, the

teacher deploys a series of devices to negotiatethe meaning of the word rentreeuch as repetition(7), paraphrase (retournee)n turn 9, and gestur-ing (11). The result of the deployment of thesedevices is to provide a scaffold that leads to thelearner's comprehension of the new word andthe

productionof an

appropriate reply to thequestion (5).

TurnAllocation

The way turns are allocated in the classroomalso indicates orientation towards teacher-cen-teredness or learner-centeredness. In traditionalteacher-fronted classrooms, turns are allocated bythe teacher calling on individual students (L6r-scher, 1986; Van Lier, 1988). In the French class,which I am presenting as an example of a learner-centered environment, the teacher frequentlyopens the floor for individual bidding; choral and

voluntary response are common. Even whenturns are allocated by the teacher, she usuallyreads signals of willingness to volunteer and callson a student who is already vocalizing the answeror gesturing.

Other classroom norms may also be nego-tiable. When learners are taken into account,norms are collectively constructed by all mem-

bers of the classroom community. In the particu-lar instance presented below, the students havebeen practicing short role-plays.Here the teacheris asking some pairs to present their conversa-tions to the rest of the class.

Episode 9

1. T: Alors,s'il vousplait, dans les cinqdernitres

minutes,est-ceque nous pouvons avoir des

exemples,alors les deux groupessont . . .

venez,s'il vousplait, venezici et vous allezfaire une petiteconversation, 'il vousplait,venez.[gesturing to front of the class](now, please, in the last 5 minutes, can

we have some examples, now the two

groups, please, come here and you are

going to have a short conversation,

please come.)2. S: Est-cequevous . . . [beginning their con-

versation]

(Do you . ..)3. T:

Oh, non,non, non. Ici,

pourla classe.

(Oh, no, no, no. Here, for the class.)4. S: What?

5. T: Pourla classe.

(For the class.)6. Ss: Noooo [with begging intonation]7. T: OK,OK,mais aprochaineois, si, alors....

(OK, OK, but next time you will,now ....)

The teacher tried to establish a classroom pat-tern: Role-playsare performed at the front of the

class. The students felt free to express their re-fusal, which was accepted by the teacher with the

compromise that the students would do it nexttime. In fact, students continued performingrole-plays from their seats throughout the semes-ter. The negotiation of classroom norms contrib-uted to create a learning atmosphere of agreednorms in which learners felt comfortable to ex-

press their feelings about the learning setting.The success of the interaction is dependent on

positive interpersonal relationships among the

participants. In this case, mutual respect leads to

the teacher yielding authority and negotiatingrules for classroom behavior.

LearningPreferencesnd Strategies

In a traditional teacher-centered classroom, itis assumed that if learners absorb the knowledgedelivered by the teacher, then learning will take

place. Consequently, there is no explicit dialogueabout learning problems.

A learner-centered orientation may lead the

teacher to encourage learners to talk about theproblems they are experiencing in languagelearning and to share learning strategies thatwork for them with other learners. The followingexcerpt is particularly illustrative of this point.

313



314

Students have been practicing short guided con-

versations in pairs. At this point, some pairs are

performing for the class. A student expresses her

frustration at not feeling confident in the use of

new past forms with etre.Of particular interest is

how the teacher handles the situation. Theteacher acts as facilitator of the discussion, rather

than as possessor of remedies.

Episode 10

1. T: Excellent. Tres bien. Un groupe de volon-

taires, sil vous plait, un autre exemple, il

vous plait . .. vous etesprets? [addressing

two students]

(Excellent. Very good. A group of volun-

teers, please, another example, please .. are you ready?)

2. S1: No. I don't like this. [Students laugh] I

have to sit there and write it down, I am

just having a hard time with this. I am

sorry.3. T: Est-cequevous avezprepare?

(Have you prepared?)4. Ss: Oui,yeah.

(Yes,yeah.)5. S1: I don't like it, I don't know. I like it the

other way.6. T: What other way? Quelleautrefafon?

(What other way?What other way?)7. S1: I don't know, Ijust, I am having a hard

time with this.

8. T: What is this?

9. S1: It's like switching avez,not with avez but

like when you do that, questions with

etre.I am trying to remember it, I have

the, I have the avoir... down and now I

am trying to change it.

10. T: That's good. Anybody else having this

problem?11. Ss: Sure, yeah.12. T: O.K. So, what are you guys doing then?

13. S2: Write it down.

14. S3: Got to work on it.

15. S4: I try to ignore it. [Students laugh]16. T: What else?

17. S2: Just practicing it, writing it down. I learn

a lot by writing and explaining things to

myself.18. T: Writing. What else? Anybody?19. S3: Same thing, and then listening for ...

for key words a, e, etre.20. T: Try any one of these, see if that helps.

Through questioning, the teacher guides the

learner to bring the problem to focus from a

TheModernLanguageJournal83 (1999)

general statement such as, I don't like this (2)to the articulation of a very specific problem: pastforms with etre 9). It should be noted that the use

of this (2) does not seem to serve a communica-

tive function. Rather, it is an emotional commen-

tary by which the learner is externalizing herinner order.7Linguistic forms such as the demon-

strative pronouns used in turn 2 are reflective of

the learner's concern with carrying out the task;their function is more cognitive than communi-

cative (DiCamilla & Lantolf, 1994).The teacher refrains from giving advice herself;

instead, she acts as a true facilitator by encourag-

ing other learners to share their ideas about how

to cope with the problem. In the unfolding dia-

logue, the teacher assists the learner in control-

ling her frustration (scaffolding function #5) byleading the learner to identify the problem and

inviting others to act as resources for each other.

She is also encouraging learners to identify their

learning styles and to try new learning strategies

(writing for the self, paying attention to keywords, etc.). Implied here is the message that

learners are responsible for their own learning,and that they can improve their chances of learn-

ing by using each other as resources.

CONCLUSION

Current pedagogical trends in L2 and foreign

language teaching call for a learner-centered ori-

entation in language classrooms. This is usually

interpreted by language teaching practitioners as

a call to include more pair and group communi-

cative activities in their lessons. It is believed that

communicative activities foster a great amount of

linguistic production, thus providing language

practice and opportunities for negotiation of

meaning and form during communicative ex-

changes, which has been claimed to be beneficial

for language learning (Long, 1996; Spada, 1997;

Swain, 1997).This study looks at learner-centeredness from a

different angle. The analysis of teacher-learner

interactive exchanges presented here shows that

teachers, through dialogue, can lead learners to

become highly involved in the negotiation of

meaning, linguistic form, and rules for classroom

behavior during classroom activities. If negotia-tion indeed plays a role in L2 learning, it is essen-

tial for SLA research to investigate the nature of

the interaction in which negotiation occurs.Swain (1997, p. 122) suggests that . . . a more

direct source of cognitive process data may be in

the collaborative dialogues themselves that learn-

ers engage in with other learners and with their



Marta Anton

teachers. On a theoretical level, it is hoped that

this study contributes to SLA research by provid-

ing insight into the cognitive functions mediated

by language in teacher-learner interaction during

negotiation (of form, content, and classroom

rules).

By looking at teacher-learner interaction from

a sociocultural perspective, we can improve our

understanding of the functions served by the

communicative moves used by teachers to pro-

vide learners with effective scaffolded help within

the ZPD during the negotiation process. So-

ciocultural theory has proven a valuable frame-

work to explore language interaction in the class-

room because at the core of the theory lies the

idea that cognitive development has its genesis in

social interaction. Specifically, the analysis pre-sented in this study shows that when learners

engage in negotiation with their teachers, the

functions of scaffolded assistance (Wood et al.,

1976) are achieved by such communicative moves

as directives, assisting questions, repetition, and

nonverbal devices such as pauses and gesturing.

In contrast, the analysis of interaction from a

traditional teacher-centered classroom shows that

the opportunities for negotiation and scaffolding

within the ZPD, and thus, learners' engagementin classroom activities, are dramatically reduced.

From a pedagogical standpoint, this study pro-vides language teachers and supervisors with a

better understanding of the communicative

moves that effectively involve learners in class-

room activities and successfully transfer responsi-

bility from the teacher to the learner.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to Fred DiCamilla for comments on a

draft version of this article. I would also like to extend

special thanks to Didier Bertrand for his assistance with

the French and Italian transcripts. Any shortcomings or

remaining errors are my sole responsibility.

NOTES

1Data for this study were collected using ethno-

graphic techniques: field notes from classroom observa-tion and audio recordings. Following ethnographicmethodology, both the Italian and the French teacher,as well as several students from each class, were inter-

viewed by the researcher and presented with prelimi-nary observations for corroboration. It was the inten-tion of this author to share the final results of the studywith both teachers. Unfortunately, meeting that objec-tive has not been possible. The Italian teacher became

315

seriously ill before the end of the semester in which the

data collection took place. He passed away shortly there-

after. The French teacher accepted a teaching positionoverseas and was unavailable by the time the study was

completed. I express my gratitude to both of them for

letting me into their classrooms and for taking the timeto discuss my observations with them.

2Following an ethnographic approach to classroom

observation (Ant6n, 1996; Van Lier, 1988), categoriesfor studywere not preestablished but emerged from the

data.3For a comprehensive review of classroom and labo-

ratory research on form-focused instruction, see Spada

(1997).4 Following Wertsch and Sammarco (1985), the term

episode is used to refer to the behavior involved in

carrying out goal-directed actions.5The use of modal verbs as a discursive device with

social and cognitive functions has been discussed insome sociocultural studies on collaborative interaction

and private speech. In a studyof learner-learner collabo-

rative interaction in a L2 writing task, Ant6n and Di-

Camilla (1998) observe that modal forms such as could

are simultaneously used with the social function of cre-

ating polite interaction and with the cognitive function

of indicating hypothetical solutions to the problems that

arise from the completion of the task. The use of modals

serving cognitive purposes is also observed in external-

ized private speech. DiCamilla and Lantolf (1994) re-

port on the use of modals by English speakers writing in

English, arguing that they serve the function of ques-

tioning to oneself about how to carry out the task.6Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994, p. 468) argue that ef-

fective help in the ZPD must be graduated(from the

minimum level of assistance needed to more specific

help when needed), and contingent provided only when

necessary and withdrawn when the novice shows signsof being capable of functioning independently). The

discovery of the potential level of development and the

provision of appropriate help is accomplished through

dialogic activity,which is a fundamental element of Vy-

gotsky's theory and the ZPD.7 I thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing this

pointto

myattention.

REFERENCES

Adair-Hauck, B., &Donato, R. (1994). Foreign language

explanations within the zone of proximal develop-ment. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50,532-557.

Adair-Hauck, B., Donato, R., & Cumo, P. (1994). Usinga whole language approach to teach grammar.In

J. Schrum &E. Glisan (Eds.), Contextualizedforeignlanguage instruction K-12 (pp. 90-111). Boston:

Heinle.

Aljaafreh,A., & Lantolf,J. ( 1994). Negative feedback as

regulation and second language learning in thezone of proximal development. ModernLanguageJournal, 78, 465-483.



Marta Anton

Lorscher, W. (1986). Conversational structures in the

foreign language classroom. In G. Kasper (Ed.),

Learning, teaching,and communicatingn the oreign

languageclassroompp. 11-22). Aarhus, Denmark:

Aarhus UniversityPress.

Lyster, R. (in press). Immersion pedagogy and implica-tions for language teaching. InJ. Cenoz &F.Gene-

see (Eds.), Beyondbilingualism:Multilingualismand

multilingualeducation.Clevedon, England: Multi-

lingual Matters.

Lyster,R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and

learners' uptake. Negotiation of form in commu-

nicative classrooms. Studies n SecondLanguageAc-

quisition,19, 37-66.

Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communica-

tive tasks and second language acquisition. English

Language TeachingJournal, 7, 203-210.

Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centredurriculum.Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press.Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks or the communicative

classroom. ambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Ohta, A. S. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an

analysis of learner discourse: Learner-learner col-

laborative interaction in the zone of proximal de-

velopment. Issues n AppliedLinguistics,6, 93-122.

Pica, T. (1987). Second language acquisition, social in-

teraction, and the classroom. AppliedLinguistics,8,3-21.

Pica, T. (1991). Classroom interaction, negotiation, and

comprehension: Redefining relationships. System,

19, 437-452.Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it

reveal about second language learning condi-

tions, processes and outcomes? LanguageLearning,44, 493-527.

Pica, T,. & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in

the communicative language classroom: A com-

parison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In

S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second an-

guageacquisition pp. 115-132). Rowley,MA:New-

bury House.

Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1988). Variations in classroom

interaction as a function of participation pattern

and task.InJ. Fine (Ed.), Second anguagediscourse:A textbookf current esearchpp. 41-55). Norwood,

NJ:Ablex Publishing Corporation.Pica, T., & Long, M. (1986). The linguistic and conver-

sational performance of experienced and inexpe-rienced teachers. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking o learn.

Conversation n second language acquisition (pp.85-98). Rowley,MA:Newbury House.

Platt, E., & Brooks, F. B. (1994). The acquisition-richenvironment revisited. ModernLanguageJournal,78, 497-511.

Porter,P. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Inputand interaction in task-centered discussions. In

R. Day (Ed.), Talking olearn.Conversationn secondlanguage acquisition (pp. 200-222). Rowley, MA:

Newbury House.

Radziszewska, B., & Rogoff, B. (1991). Children's

guided participation in planning imaginary er-

rands with skilled adult or peer partners. Develop-mentalPsychology, 7, 381-397.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeshipn thinking. Cognitive

developmentn social context.New York:Oxford Uni-

versity Press.

Rogoff, B., & Gardner, W. (1984). Adult guidance ofcognitive development. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave

(Eds.), Everydaycognition:Its developmentn social

context (pp. 95-116). Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Rommetveit, R. (1974). On messagetructure: framework

for the study of language and communication.New

York:Wiley.Rommetveit, R. (1979). On codes and dynamic residu-

als in human communication. In R. Rommetveit

& R. M. Blakar (Eds.), Studiesof language, thoughtand verbalcommunication pp. 163-175). Orlando,FL:Academic Press.

Rulon, K., & McCreary,J. (1986). Negotiation of con-tent: Teacher-fronted and small-group interac-

tion. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking o learn. Conversation

in second language acquisition (pp. 182-199).

Rowley,MA:Newbury House.

Schinke-Llano, L. (1993). On the value of a Vygotskianframeworkfor SLAtheory and research. Language

Learning,43, 121-129.

Shaffer, C. (1989). A comparison of inductive and de-

ductive approaches to teaching foreign languages.ModernLanguage ournal, 73, 395-403.

Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second

language acquisition: A review of classroom andlaboratory research. Language Teaching,30 (2),73-87.

Stone, C. A. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of

scaffolding? In E. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A.

Stone (Eds.), Contextsor learning.Sociocultural y-namics n children's evelopmentpp. 169-183). Ox-

ford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Someroles of comprehensible input and compre-hensible output in its development. In S. Gass &C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second anguage acqui-sition (pp. 236-244). Rowley, MA: Newbury

House.Swain, M. (1996). Focus onform throughcollaborative ia-

logue:Exploring askeffects.Paper presented at the

annual AAALconference, Chicago, IL.

Swain, M. (1997). Collaborative dialogue: Its contribu-

tion to second language learning. RevistaCanariadeEstudiosIngleses,34, 115-132.

Swain,M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output andthe cognitive processes they generate: A step to-wards second language learning. AppliedLinguis-tics, 16, 371-391.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second

language learning: Two adolescent French im-

mersion students working together. ModernLan-

guageJournal,82, 320-337.

Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousingminds to life.

Teaching, learning and schooling in social context.

Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress.

317



318

van Lier,L. (1988). Theclassroom nd the anguage earner.

London: Longman.van Lier, L. (1991). Inside the classroom: Learning

processes and teaching procedures. AppliedLan-

guage Learning,2, 29-68.

Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-nativeconversations: A model for negotiation of mean-

ing. AppliedLinguistics,6, 71-90.

Villamil, O., &De Guerrero, M. (1996). Peer revision in

the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, medi-

ating strategies, and aspects of social behavior.

Journal of SecondLanguageWriting, , 51-75.

Vygotsky,L. S. (1978). Mind in society:Thedevelopmentf

higherpsychological rocesses.Cambridge, MA: Har-

vard UniversityPress.

Vygotsky,L. S. (1979). Consciousness as a problem in

the psychology of behavior. SovietPsychology, 7,

3-35.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mentalfunctions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The conceptof

activityn Sovietpsychologypp. 144-188). Armonk,

NY:M. E. Sharpe.

Vygotsky,L. S. (1986). Thought nd language.Cambridge,MA:MIT Press.

Wells, G. (1998). Using LI to master L2: A response to

Ant6n & DiCamilla's 'Socio-cognitive functions of

L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom.'

CanadianModernLanguageReview,54, 343-353.

Wertsch, J. V. (1980). The significance of dialogue in

Vygotsky'saccount of social, egocentric, and inner

The Modern Language Journal 83 (1999)

speech. ContemporaryEducational Psychology,5,

150-162.

WertschJ. V. (1985). Vygotskynd the social ormation ofmind.Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices f the mind: A sociocultural

approach o mediatedaction. Cambridge, MA: Har-vard UniversityPress.

Wertsch,J. V., & Hickmann, M. (1987). Problem solvingin social interaction: A microgenetic analysis. In

M. Hickmann (Ed.), Social and functional ap-

proaches olanguageand thought pp. 251-266). Or-

lando, FL: Academic Press.

Wertsch, J. V., Minick, N., & Arns, F J. (1984). The

creation of context in joint problem-solving. In B.

Rogoff &J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday ognition: ts devel-

opmentn socialcontext pp. 151-171). Cambridge,MA:Harvard UniversityPress.

Wertsch,J. V., & Sammarco,J. (1985). Social precursors

to individual cognitive functioning: the problemof units of analysis. In R. A. Hinde, A. N. Perret-

Clermont, &J. Stevenson Hinde (Eds.), Socialrela-

tionshipsand cognitivedevelopment pp. 276-293).New York:Oxford UniversityPress.

Wong Fillmore, L. (1985). When does teacher talk work

as input? In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in

second language acquisition (pp. 17-50). Rowley,MA:Newbury House.

Wood, D., Bruner,J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of

tutoring in problem solving. Journal of ChildPsy-

chology&Psychiatry,17, 89-100.

Members Welcome in ACTFLResearch SIG

The ACTFL Special Interest Group on Research invites you to join its growing membership. The

ACTFL research SIG promotes active collaboration among ACTFL members, including experi-

enced researchers, teachers, and graduate students, for the purpose of a research-based approachto second language pedagogy and investigations. The research SIG provides a forum for dynamic

exchange and discussion of research in second language education and second language acqui-

sition. More specifically, the Research SIG: (a) sponsors programs and workshops to help mem-

bers develop their research skills; (b) offers opportunities for disseminating completed studies at

its paper session as well as work-in-progress and research-based products at its poster session; and

(c) maintains electronic and regular mailings to facilitate networking among those active in

research as well as those interested in learning about research issues and opportunities.

For more information or to join the SIG, contact:

Micheline Chalhoub-Deville, Research SIG Chair

University of IowaForeign Language & ESL Education

N254 Lindquist Center

Tel: (319) 335-5606

Email: [email protected]

Learner Centred Discourse. Anton

Documents

Transcript of Learner Centred Discourse. Anton