This article was downloaded by: [Cornell University Library]On: 17 November 2014, At: 21:50Publisher: 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

The bilingual interactions of late partialimmersion French students during ahistory taskMargaret Mary Gearon aa Faculty of Education , Monash University , PO Box 6, MonashClayton, Melbourne, VIC, 3800, AustraliaPublished online: 29 Mar 2010.

To cite this article: Margaret Mary Gearon (2011) The bilingual interactions of late partialimmersion French students during a history task, International Journal of Bilingual Education andBilingualism, 14:1, 39-48, DOI: 10.1080/13670051003623787

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670051003623787

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 whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out 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

The bilingual interactions of late partial immersion French studentsduring a history task

Margaret Mary Gearon*

Faculty of Education, Monash University, PO Box 6, Monash Clayton, Melbourne, VIC 3800,Australia

(Received 20 October 2009; final version received 7 January 2010)

Task-based learning has been recommended in immersion classes in order toprovide relief from the usual teacher-fronted lessons and increase the opportu-nities for student output. This paper presents one aspect of the data collectedduring the on-going evaluation of a late partial immersion French programme inan Australian school. It presents the bilingual interactions of two small groups of14-year-old students working collaboratively to complete a problem-solving taskfor a History unit, requiring them to design a new village in the middle ages. Theanalysis demonstrates that these students do not use French only for the set task,but engage in other social uses of the language as well as using English for specificinteractions related to completing the set task. In terms of sociocultural theory,one pair uses French as a mediating tool to negotiate and scaffold the completionof the set task and to develop their personal relationship with each other. Theother small group uses both languages primarily to progress through the set task,although in a couple of short instances, one of the students digresses and tries toengage the others in a non-task directed interaction.

Keywords: additive bilingualism; immersion education; French; Australia;scaffolding

Introduction

Immersion education has generally been characterised by an emphasis on consistent

and constant use of the target language by teachers and students alike. The tendency

to proscribe the use of the students’ L1 has resulted in immersion teachers’ reluctance

to use small group or even pair work for fear of learners not making an effort to

function in the L2 during tasks. Emphasis on comprehensible input and maximising

opportunities for comprehensible output have also contributed to this. More recently,

however, Swain (2001) and Swain and Lapkin (2000) have shown that students’ use

of L1 during collaborative tasks: ‘helps students to understand and make sense of the

requirements of the task; to focus attention on language forms and vocabulary use,

and overall organization; and to establish the tone of their collaboration’ (Swain and

Lapkin 2000, 268). This paper examines the use of the L1 and L2 by Year 8 students

in a late partial immersion French programme during a collaborative written task for

History. The analysis of the students’ discourse uses Swain and Lapkin’s (2000, 257)

*Email: margaret.gearon@education.monash.edu.au

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

Vol. 14, No. 1, January 2011, 39�48

ISSN 1367-0050 print/ISSN 1747-7522 online

# 2011 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13670051003623787

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:50

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

three categories for coding the use of L1, namely: ‘moving the task along, focusing

attention and interpersonal interaction’.

Studies of the use of L1 in L2 classrooms

Behan, Turnbull, and Spek (1997) studied the use of students’ L1 (English) during a

cognitively challenging group work task in Social Studies. They were interested in how

much use of English students made and its effect on the final oral presentation in their

L2 (French). Their results showed that, ‘in collaborative learning situations, the verbal

exchanges are more frequent when they are allowed the freedom to choose to

communicate in French, English or a mixture of both’ (Behan and Turnbull 1997, 41).

Behan, Turnbull, and Spek concluded that: ‘L1 use can both support and enhance L2

development, functioning simultaneously as an effective tool for dealing with

cognitively demanding content’ (Behan and Turnbull 1997, 41). This appears to be

the case with the group of three students from this study, as will be seen in the

examples below.

Villamil and de Guerrero (1996) investigated the strategies Spanish speaking

students learning English (L2) employed, and the kinds of activities used to revise

their written work during a pair work activity. They found that, ‘for most

students, the L1 (Spanish) was an essential tool for making meaning of text,

retrieving language from memory, exploring and expanding content, guiding their

action through the task and maintaining dialogue’ (Villamil and de Guerrero

1996, 60). They also noted the use of the L1 (Spanish) to provide scaffolding

(Villamil and de Guerrero 1996, 61), a point which will be taken up later in this

paper. They concluded that the L1 (Spanish) was: ‘a natural crutch for

conducting interactions and solving revision problems’ (Villamil and de Guerrero

1996, 67); and they claimed that the use of the native language is a powerful tool

in controlling the task process (Villamil and de Guerrero 1996, 67). De Guerrero

and Villamil (2000, 64), in a study involving Spanish (L1) speakers in an English

(L2) communication course, have noted, however, that: ‘the value of using L1 in

L2 interactive settings should be judged in light of the nature of the collaborative

tasks involved’ (de Guerrero and Villamil 2000, 64), as this may not be favourable

in all cases.

Anton and DiCamilla (1998) also studied the use of students’ L1 (English) in a

writing task in their L2 (Spanish). They too found that the L1 (English) provided for

scaffolding and for maintaining interest in and focus on the task (Anton and

DiCamilla 1998, 321). Their analysis of extracts from the small group interactions

showed: ‘how the L1 mediates cognitive processes learners use in problem-solving

tasks, specifically to reflect on content and form of the text’ (Anton and DiCamilla

1998, 323). They conclude that, from a sociolinguistic perspective, the use of the L1

acts as a critical psychological tool, enabling learners to construct an effective

collaborative dialogue for which one of the three functions is to provide scaffolded

help (Anton and DiCamilla 1998, 337). From a sociocultural point, the use of the L1

is: ‘a means to create a social and cognitive space in which learners are able to

provide each other and themselves with help throughout the task’ (Anton and

DiCamilla 1998, 338).

Cook (2001) presents arguments for a timely reconsideration of the role of the L1

as a resource in L2 classrooms. Although the main focus of his article is on the use of

40 M.M. Gearon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:50

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the L1 for teaching purposes, the implications of the claims made for avoiding its use

do impact on learners. Cook rightly states:

Keeping the languages visibly separate in language teaching is contradicted by theinvisible processes in students’ minds. Language teaching that works with this fact oflife is more likely to be successful than teaching that works against it. Many likelyL2 goals for students involve mediating between two languages rather than stayingentirely in the L2. [. . .] Nor indeed can a separate L2 achieve the internal goals oflanguage teaching; if the aim of learning a language is to improve students’ mindscognitively, emotionally, or socially, the L2 had better not (original italics) beinsulated from the rest of the mind.

Cook’s main purpose in this article is to summarise and counter the arguments

which have traditionally been used to exclude the L1 from L2 classrooms, and

then to suggest ways in which its use could be more positive by building on what

actually happens in L2 classrooms, as recorded in the literature (see, for exampleMacaro 1997, Mitchell 1988, Polio and Duff 1994 for accounts of what and why

teachers say they revert to L1 use). Lastly, Cook examines students’ use of the L1

in their L2 learning. He sees aspects such as code-switching and the coexistence

of both languages as advantages to the development of bilingual learning

strategies. He also refers to research which has demonstrated the power of the

L1 in scaffolding L2 learning during group work and states that: ‘through the L1,

they [students] may explain the task to one another, negotiate roles they are going

to take, or check their understanding or production of language against theirpeers’ (Cook 2001, 418), some activities which the students in the study reported

on here engage in. Cook’s final plea is to consider the L2 classroom as a natural

setting where two languages always coexist, and to revise language teaching

methodology in the twenty-first century in order to devise: ‘ways of introducing

the L1 into the classroom to produce students who are able to operate with two

language systems as genuine L2 users, not as imitation natives’ (Cook 2001, 419).

The use of L1 to scaffold an L2 task

As mentioned above, both Anton and DiCamilla (1998) and Villamil and de

Guerrero (1996) claimed that the use of the students’ L1 during a collaborative task

provided a means of scaffolding for the group members to successfully stay on task

and complete this in the L2. Donato (2000, 39�40) and Swain (2000) also consider

this use of the L1 as a tool to mediate L2 learning. Lantolf (2000, 108) cites a number

of studies which demonstrate the positive effect of L1 use in peer mediation and in

enabling learners to cope with a cognitively challenging L2 task (for example, Brooks

and Donato 1994; Swain and Lapkin 1998, 2000).According to de Guerrero and Villamil (2000, 51): ‘scaffolding refers to those

supportive behaviours by which an expert can help a novice learner achieve higher

levels of regulation’. However, the results of their study supported the view that even

intermediate learners whose language competence is similar can successfully use

scaffolding in their L2 to enable them to complete a task (de Guerrero and Villamil

2000, 52).

It would appear from the studies reviewed here that the use of the L1 promotes

achievement of the task in the L2, and is a means of advancing L2 knowledge andcompetence.

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:50

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Context of the study

This research involves a study of students in a late partial immersion French

programme, with a particular focus on the first two years. The students are from

predominantly English-speaking families, although there are a few whose first/home

language is not English (Cantonese, Italian, and French speakers have been present in

some years). The programme began in an independent girls’ school in Melbourne,

Australia in 1998. The class of 24 students who apply to participate in the late partial

immersion programme which is housed within the English-speaking school, form one

group for the subjects taught through French, but are dispersed in other classes for the

remaining subjects taught through English. Students study Mathematics and Social

Science through French in their first year of secondary school, then, Science, Drama

and History in their second year. In addition, they have a French language arts class at

least four times per week. Lessons in all subjects are 75 minutes in length.

The particular focus of the data collected in 2002 from the fifth group to participate

in this programme, during their Science and History classes, was on the development of

the students’ spoken competence. My interest lies in how the students use their two

languages to scaffold the development of their L2 (French) during collaborative tasks.

The results of students’ interactions and their use of the two languages during a

collaborative task in which they had to order a series of pictures and then write the

story together have been presented elsewhere (Gearon 2003, 2006). In this paper, the

data collected during History classes, in particular, from a small group activity during

one particular unit on life in the middle ages are analysed.

Participants

The students in the two groups selected for the recording represent two different

points of the language development continuum. Their level of proficiency in French

and their commitment to study were provided by the immersion programme

coordinator who drew on their assignment and test results as provided in their

school reports. Two of these students (Sharon and Veronica) are highly motivated to

learn French and to perform at as high a level as possible. Sharon attended a primary

school where she was exposed to French through an early partial immersion

programme; a high achiever, she would like to study medicine at a French university.

Veronica comes from an Italian�English bilingual family, but is also encouraged to

use French at home. She has some difficulties interacting with other students in small

group situations, and generally chooses to work on her own. In whole class work, she

frequently intervenes with thoughtful responses and queries to the teacher.

The second group, Heather, Marianne and Susan, is not as confident in their

French and, in this particular year, is less interested in academic tasks and more in

socialising. They respond well to the presence of the teacher and to constant

direction and reminders about applying themselves to the task at hand.

The teacher is a native speaker of French who established the partial immersion

programme and coordinates all parts of the programme from Year 7 to Year 9. In

1999, she undertook a two week intensive course in Vancouver along with Canadian

teachers in immersion programmes in order to develop her understanding of optimal

ways of developing students’ language knowledge and skills through a later partial

immersion programme. It was after this experience that she focused on the use of

42 M.M. Gearon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:50

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

collaborative tasks and experiential projects in both the Social Studies and History

subjects for which she was responsible.

Data collection

The data were collected by the class teacher who gave the two groups of students

a cassette player and asked them to audio-record their verbal interactions while

working on a History task. The recordings took place over two lessons during which

the students worked in groups of three to complete the following task:

It is the year 496. Imagine that you and your friends are warriors in Cerdic’s band. He isa Saxon leader who has driven the British from the area shown on map A and burnttheir huts. Cerdic has told you that you can start your own village. To do this, you haveto send to Saxony for your friends and your families. Shiploads of men, women andchildren will come, with everything they own. There is room for twenty families. If thevillage is to do well, people will have to be able to do different jobs.

After you have talked about the different jobs for the villager, copy out and fill in table B(My translation from the original).

The resulting discussions between the students and with other class members and the

teacher were transcribed by a native French speaking research assistant. Since the

latter was not conversant with discourse analysis techniques, she did not use any of

the recognised conventions, but transcribed what these students were saying,

occasionally making comments about interventions from other students and the

teacher and leaving gaps where she was not able to distinguish words or parts of

phrases. The students’ English utterances are presented in italics and their French

ones, in bold and italics. The researcher checked the transcriptions for their accuracy

and made appropriate revisions where these were needed.

Data analysis

As stated in the introduction, Swain and Lapkin’s three purposes for the use of L1 were

applied to the analysis of the transcribed data. The students used both English and

French not only in the process of completing the task, but also in off-task behaviour

which occurs from time to time across the one and a half lessons which were recorded.

As lessons are 75 minutes in length, it is natural that 14-year-old girls will deviate from

their academic task to focus on personal and social issues.

Swain and Lapkin (2000, 257) propose three purposes for the use of the L1:

(1) Moving the task along.

(2) Focusing attention on language.

(3) Interpersonal interactions.

In terms of moving the task along, they suggest three categories within this purpose:

(1) Figuring out the order of events.

(2) Retrieving semantic information.(3) Task management.

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:50

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

These purposes and categories have been used here to analyse the interactions

between the students in each of the two groups.

Results

In the present study, Sharon and Veronica use a mixture of French and English to

establish what point they have reached in the task and to move this along, as in the

example below. Note that their pronunciation of the letters C and D is in English, not

French:

S: Ah D, D, oui. You’re right. I’m thinking C.V: No, C, c’est la.S: I’m thinking you were doing C.V: We’re down to here.

Marianne, Heather and Susan generally use English to move the task along.

However, after the teacher has explained a number of vocabulary items to them so

that they can start, they interact in a mixture of French and English:

M: Ok, il faut un forgeron.S: What do those do?H: On doit avait un, one of those.[. . .]M: We don’t need that many people because they are all adultes (French pronunciation oflast word).

The task requires the students to use a large amount of vocabulary, mainly nouns

which refer to the occupations of the villagers and the types of animal and equipment

needed. The three weaker students use English to scaffold their approach to the

requirements of the task as in the example below:

H: Oh les hommes actifs.M: Non, pourquoi on a 34 enfants et bebes?H: Oh ca, c’est le . . . stylo!S: Why don’t we have. . .M: We have each family has two kids.H: D’accord.M: So only sixty, sixty-six people can work.H: Juste soixante-six personnes peuvent travaille, peuvent travail.[. . .]M: So that’s all men, so far. So we have eleven more men left.H: Juste onze men?

Another of Swain and Lapkin’s (2000, 257) categories within the first purpose of

moving the task along is task management. Sharon uses English to bring Veronica

back to the History task after the latter has been distracted by other students or by

a lapse in concentration as shown here:

A: What’s a casseroles (French pronunciation)?V: Pots, pots to make casseroles in.S: We are supposed to do a circle 3000 metres wide.C’est tres, tres.. c’est, ca va jusque la.

44 M.M. Gearon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:50

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

[. . .]S: Oh you’ve got that song in my head!V: C’est une bonne chanson.S: Je sais mais . . .Right, are these your houses or are these your crops? I don’t understand how many youneed. Aren’t you drawing your house? Where are your houses?

The second of Swain and Lapkin’s purposes for using the L1, focusing attention on

vocabulary or on grammatical information, occurs more in the interactions between

Marianne, Heather and Susan than between Sharon and Veronica.

M: Madame, qu’est-ce que c’est une casserole?S: I had a casserole for dinner last night.H: Maybe they’re like meals on wheels?S: Pots and casseroles. It’s meals and wheels.H: How many pots and casseroles do we need?M: Qu’est-ce que c’est les pots et casseroles? Je vais . . . je vais demander a Madamequ’est-ce que c’est une casserole.

The third purpose mentioned by Swain and Lapkin (2000, 257), interpersonal

interactions and off-task behaviour, also occurs in the data of the present study. The

former include disagreements among the group members Heather, Marianne and

Susan, who use a combination of L1 and L2 to put their view forward:

H: No, how many hommes do we do?S: Two guys.H: No, as the macons, how many?M: Five femmes, two guys.H: No, how many we got working there?M: Les macons. . .H: Seven.M: No we’ve got five femmes.H: No, all the workmen are working.S: No, because there are not enough women, we only have twenty women.H: No, ten, nine tisseuses . . .

Whereas Sharon and Veronica’s interpersonal conversations occurred spontaneously

during the lessons, and they were more likely to go off-task, Mariane, Heather and

Susan were only off-task twice, once in each lesson. At one point in the first lesson,

Susan becomes pre-occupied with the discomfort her school uniform is causing and

attempts to interrupt the task decision-making process in which Marianne and

Heather are involved. She does this initially in English, and when her group members

ignore this, reverts to French.

S: My dress is coming up!M: Ah!S: Mon robe se . . . se creep up!H: So there are nine men who aren’t working.[. . .]S: OK je dois puller mon dress down.M: Oh, do you want to make seven of each?S: J’ai besoin de puller mon . . .H: Non, ‘cos then we have five left over.S: Ca, ce n’est pas. Je ne suis pas tres comfortable (English pronunciation).

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:50

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The fact that Marianne and Heather continued with the task discussion, in spite of

Susan’s efforts to use French to indicate her problem, resulted in the latter not

continuing to draw attention to this.Sharon and Veronica have a number of off-task discussions in both languages.

Two of these are described here. In the following extract, Sharon expresses

exasperation at her constant mixing of vous and tu when speaking to Veronica.

Their off-task discussion begins in French, but moves back to English when Sharon

does not know the French for the expression ‘stand-up comedy’ and Veronica uses

English for her response to Sharon’s suggestion that she become a stand-up comic.

S: Vous voulez etre adulte?V: Vous?S: Toujours je change avec vous, tu. Ca m’enerve. Ca t’enerve?V: Oui. Juste pour le record, je nod my head.[. . .]S: Est-ce que vous etes . . . Est-ce que tu veux faire du stand-up comedy?V: Non, pourquoi?S: Parce que vous, tu es tres bien pour stand-up comedy.V: Oh merci. Thank you for telling me that I should waste my reasonably sad life.

Towards the end of the second lesson, when these two students are completely

off-task and engaging in phatic communication (Gearon 2006), creating an

imaginary scenario, Veronica’s imagination races ahead of her proficiency in French,

and she resorts to English:

V: On peut avoir un elephant qui joue le part. Spoil the scene for everybody.

Heather, Marianne and Susan also deviate from the actual task to create a short,

amusing diversion in which they decide to have a song about their village that

they have named by using letters from each of their given names. Their noisy

interaction over this song draws the teacher’s attention and she comes to put

them back on task.

M: We should have a little anthem for it.S: We could sing it to the class.M (sings): Helmastef, you rock, you’ve all got to come to our place.S: Oh, I’ve got the best anthem.(sings): Tu peux danser, tu peux danser, tout le monde voit son pantalon.Ca, c’est l’anthem de Helmastef.[. . .]T: Les filles, il faut finir.

At this point, they return to work on completing the task in French.

Conclusion

The students recorded for this late partial immersion History task were half way

through the fourth semester of the programme. The data presented here show that

they use both their L1 and L2 for Swain and Lapkin’s (2000) proposed purposes.

They use both languages to scaffold the discourse required by the task and to ensure

its successful completion by the support this provides for each other. It is evident that

46 M.M. Gearon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:50

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

their L1 use promotes the process involved in the task and enhances their L2

knowledge, in particular as Swain and Lapkin (2000, 268) have noted, through the

attention that this brings to language forms and, in this particular instance, to

vocabulary use, and the way in which they collaborate to complete the set task. In

terms of their off task interactions, Veronica and Sharon structure their dialogue

about the use of ‘tu’ and ‘vous’ in French, and revert to English for unknown

vocabulary items or for a longer personal comment. Susan, too, is able to structure

her utterances according to French syntax and code-switch to English when she does

not know or remember the French term. This is evident when she begins to complain

about the discomfort caused by her dress and says, ‘Mon robe se . . . se creep up’. The

use of the start of a reflexive verb shows that she is trying to formulate a French

sentence, as does the use of ‘J’ai besoin de puller mon’ . . . where she creates a verb by

adding the regular infinitive ending � er pronounced (/e/) � to an English verb. In

producing the words of the anthem for their village, she is able to produce a pattern

in French which she has learned previously, contrasting with Marianne’s suggestion

of the anthem’s lyrics in English. These examples from one small component of the

late partial immersion French programme demonstrate that the students, towards the

end of Term 3 in their second year, rely heavily on the vocabulary provided for them

to work on the task, negotiate details about the task in both languages, separately

and through mixing elements within their utterances, and also use code-switching

when they deviate from the task to discuss personal topics.

In terms of other studies which examine students’ use of their L1 to scaffold the

production of L2, the data presented here support Behan, Turnbull, and Spek’s

(1997) findings that students who are allowed the freedom to choose which language/

s to use during collaborative tasks freely move between their L1 and L2 and that the

use of the L1 supports the development of the L2, especially where the content of

the task is cognitively demanding. The findings of Villamil and de Guerrero (1996),

de Guerrero and Villamil (2000), and Anton and DiCamilla (1998), and the

comments made by Cook (2001, 417�8) concerning students’ effective use of L1 to

scaffold the production of L2 in collaborative writing, are also supported here.

Perhaps the most important implication of the data presented here is that students’

use of the L1 should not be proscribed in a late immersion class as it provides an

effective tool for the three purposes proposed by Swain and Lapkin (2000, 257),

namely moving the task along, focusing attention on language and allowing for

interpersonal interactions to take place, and reflects the suggestion by Cook (2001,

418) that legitimate use of the L1 in L2 classes can: ‘build up interlinked L1 and L2

knowledge in the students’ minds [and enable them] to carry out learning tasks

through collaborative dialogue with fellow students’.

References

Anton, M., and F. DiCamilla. 1998. Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interactionin the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review 54, no. 3: 314�53.

Behan, L., M. Turnbull, with J. Spek. 1997. The proficiency gap in late immersion (extendedFrench): Language use in collaborative tasks. Le Journal de l’Immersion 20: 41�2.

Brooks, F., and R. Donato. 1994. Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign languagelearner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania 77, no. 2: 262�74.

Cook, V. 2001. Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review57, no. 3: 402�23.

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:50

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

de Guerrero, M., and O. Villamil. 2000. Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peerrevision. Modern Language Journal 84, no. 1: 51�68.

Donato, R. 2000. Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and secondlanguage classroom. In Sociocultural theory and second language learning, ed. J. Lantolf,27�50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gearon, M. 2003. Learner strategies for filling the knowledge gaps during collaborative tasks.Babel 39, no. 1: 32�4, 38.

Gearon, M. 2006. Peer-peer dialogues: Mediating the acquisition of second languagegrammatical forms through the use of first language during a collaborative task.International Journal of the Humanities 4, no. 5: 135�40.

Lantolf, J., ed. 2000. Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Macaro, E. 1997. Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.

Mitchell, R. 1988. Communicative language teaching in practice. London: CILTR.Polio, C., and P. Duff. 1994. Teachers’ language use in university foreign language classrooms:

A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. Modern LanguageJournal 78, no. 3: 311�26.

Swain. M. 2000. The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition throughcollaborative dialogue. In Sociocultural theory and second language learning, ed. J. Lantolf,97�113. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. 2001. Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and tovalidating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing 18, no. 3: 275�302.

Swain, M., and S. Lapkin. 1998. Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescentFrench immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal 82, no. 3: 320�37.

Swain, M., and S. Lapkin. 2000. Task-based second language learning: The uses of the firstlanguage. Language Teaching Research 4, no. 3: 251�74.

Villamil, O., and M. de Guerrero. 1996. Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitiveactivities, mediating strategies and aspects of social behaviour. Journal of Second LanguageWriting 5, no. 1: 51�75.

48 M.M. Gearon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cor

nell

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 2

1:50

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14