AL Forum

AL Forum News, Volume 28:1 (December 2007)

by User Not Found | 11/02/2011
AL Forum In This Issue...
  • Leadership Updates
    • From the Chair
    • From the Chair-Elect
    • From the Editors
  • Articles and Information
    • Language As Content
    • An Experiential Approach to Second Language Education
    • How Talk About Language Emerges Spontaneously in the L2 Classroom

Leadership Updates From the Chair

Howard A. Williams, Teachers College, Columbia University, howwil@aol.com

Many thanks to all ALIS members who participated in proposal rating this summer for next year's conference in New York. If you experienced some difficulty in completing the process, let me say that I experienced even more of it, and the Central Office far more than any of us. The new computerized system had a number of glitches that became apparent only after the rating process was well under way. The result was that some members received more abstracts than they had bargained for, sometimes in multiple batches; some also reported having received a set of "ghost abstracts" sent by another Interest Section. There was also a glut of applied linguistics (AL) paper proposals this year—almost 150 in all.

At a recent faculty meeting at my school that was partly devoted to curriculum development in our AL program, we found ourselves up against the cold stone wall of inability to define our own field in a coherent way—neither its heart nor its parameters. AL, unlike theoretical linguistics or psychology or chemistry, has no conceptually unified questions or problems that all people everywhere could agree on. (We had the same problem in the AL program at my alma mater, UCLA, where a definition, as far as one was attempted, seemed to change with the winds; we were told at one point that AL is "whatever we want it to be.") Though the field began, for many departments, as a place in which linguistic theory could be applied in educational settings, it has taken many paths of growth since then but has never developed a set of coherent questions or problems or goals in the way that linguistic theory or psychology has; discourse analysts may have no particular interest in educational applications, for example. To make things worse, some scholars looking at language in various academic departments—literary theory, for example, or computational linguistics—would most likely not refer to themselves as "applied linguists" even though it could be argued that they logically fit the label.

The TESOL Web site offers two descriptions of AL: one short, one long. The short version says that ALIS "explores language learning and communication. Members apply research and theory to real-world contexts through discussion, information exchange, and joint research." As it stands, this would seem to subsume much of what is done within other Interest Sections. The longer definition is this: "The Applied Linguistics Interest Section (ALIS) looks at language as a communicative system from both theoretical and practical perspectives, applies research and theory to real-world contexts, and explores implications for the enhancement of language learning and communication. It draws on linguistic disciplines (e.g., linguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics) as well as on studies of a broad range of language phenomena."

As ALIS members, we might usefully address several questions about our self-definition at this point. I frame this as an invitation to all ALIS members with an opinion to share it with the membership as a whole (my e-mail is provided below). The questions are as follows:

  1. Is TESOL's characterization broad enough? Are there areas of inquiry that should be properly thought of as "AL" that do not fall under the umbrella of AL as characterized here?
  2. Conversely, is TESOL's definition of AL too all-inclusive, and should it be tightened up somewhat?
  3. Speaking more practically (and apropos to the first question), are certain types of what you consider important "AL-related" topics (for papers, colloquia, etc.) simply ignored both by our IS and by TESOL as a whole in its Interest Sections?
  4. Is there undesirable overlap between the concerns of AL and those of other ISs? (I have heard more than one TESOL member express bewilderment about whether to submit a paper proposal to ALIS or to another IS.)

If you feel any of these questions are worth addressing, please e-mail your comments to me at howwil@aol.com by February 1, 2008, and I will do my best, in the next newsletter, to compile a set of responses that might serve as input to the folks up on high at TESOL.

I would now like to extend a welcome to Ali Shehadeh, our new chair-elect, who will introduce himself and tell us about the Academic Session that he has organized for TESOL 2008 in New York.


From the Chair-Elect

Ali Shehadeh, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, UAE, Ali.Shehadeh@uaeu.ac.ae

My name is Ali Shehadeh. I am this year's ALIS chair-elect. I was grateful to have been nominated at the Seattle Conference and am honored to follow in the footsteps of predecessors Howard Williams, Isaiah Yoo, and Noel Houck. I look forward to meeting many ALIS members in the coming two years, as Chair-Elect and Chair.

Currently, I am Chair of the Department of General and Applied Linguistics/TESOL at the United Arab Emirates University in the UAE. I obtained my MA (1988) and PhD (1991) in Applied Linguistics and second language acquisition (SLA) from the University of Durham in the UK. I have taught under- and postgraduate courses in linguistics, applied linguistics, SLA, research methodology, and writing and composition at various universities in the Middle East. I am also an MA supervisor on the Applied Linguistics Open Distance Learning Programme of the Centre for English Language Studies at the University of Birmingham, UK.

My research interests include SLA, task-based language learning and instruction, teaching methodology, and the pedagogy of writing. My research papers have appeared in a range of international refereed journals from the research end of applied linguistics and second language acquisition like Language Learning, TESOL Quarterly, System, and Journal of Applied Linguistics to the practical end of language teaching and learning like ELT Journal, English Teaching Forum, English Teaching Professional, andTESOL Arabia Perspectives.

Now, let's turn to what's planned for New York's conference in April 2008.

Over the past few months, Howard Williams, the ALIS current Chair, and I have been busy organizing the Interest Section's (IS) activities for the upcoming conference in New York. We have organized an inter-section session, 12 Discussion Group (DG) sessions, and the IS's Academic Session (AS). This year's AS will be called "Comprehensible Input, Comprehensible Output and L2 Learning." A panel of distinguished scholars in the field, Diane Larsen-Freeman, Andrew Cohen, and Teresa Pica, will contribute to this timely and hot topic. Traditionally, comprehensible input and comprehensible output have been examined in isolation, and at times have been considered to be mutually exclusive. Going beyond these compartmentalized treatments, these scholars will look at comprehensible input and output and their role in L2 learning as complementary, both serving to facilitate L2 learning from different perspectives and helping make L2 teaching more effective.

I trust this will be an exceptionally interesting, informative, and lively session. So come along with your questions, clarifications, and contributions, and let's make this Academic Session even more interesting and lively.

I am looking forward to seeing as many ALIS members as possible next April in New York.


From the Editors

Scott Phillabaum, California State University, Dominguez Hills, sphillabaum@csudh.edu, and Lorena Llosa, New York University, ll62@nyu.edu

Greetings to everyone as we approach the end of 2007!

In this issue (28.1) we are pleased to feature three articles by presenters of last year's TESOL Applied Linguistics Academic Session in Seattle, which was entitled "Language As Content." The authors offer various perspectives on how language can become the object of study or "content" in a language class without undermining the communicative goals of the course. We believe these articles will be of interest to many who have struggled with this issue in their own teaching.

Howard Williams sets the tone for this issue by challenging the dichotomy in language pedagogy that views language and content in opposition to each other. He proposes that language can be treated as content in a language course as long as communicative principles are observed. Next, Barbara Hawkins asks us to consider the fact that in second language classrooms language is both the object and the tool of instruction. By applying basic notions from activity theory to classroom data, she proposes an experiential approach to our organization of instruction. Finally, Gabrielle Kahn argues that talk about language can emerge spontaneously in an ESL class when teachers design tasks that encourage learners to produce creative language as they interact in authentic classroom settings over time. To demonstrate this, she presents an example of how this happens with a group of second language students who are in the process of telling and talking about their own stories.

We thank all submitting authors for their contributions and hope you'll enjoy this issue of the ALIS Forum!



Articles and Information Language As Content

Howard A. Williams, Teachers College, Columbia University, howwil@aol.com

As second language teachers, we have two choices at any given time in our classrooms. We can focus our students' attention on the real world in which the target L2 is used, using the L2 in the process, or we can make the "form" of the L2 itself our object of study. So, at least, we have been told: the distinction guides discussion of syllabus design and serves to conceptualize classroom activities. It has been with us for so long that it is hard to realize that it was not always there in quite the way it is today. The usual account, which has been current for a generation or so, goes approximately as follows. By learning about the language, students develop declarative knowledge about sounds and structures meant to be internalized as procedural knowledge; however, this pedagogical orientation focuses on the wrong goal. What native speakers of any language do in everyday life is engage in talk about "content," which (though never quite defined) is grounded in the real world rather than in the language that represents that world. For some learners, content means learning survival skills in a new city where they work, eat, and raise families; for those on an academic track it means talking about global warming, gender roles across cultures, and so on as a means of acculturation to the academic world. Ideal classroom content, the narrative continues, should be accessible to learners, should be of potential interest to them, will hopefully be useful to them, and should promote rich vocabulary development. We want class time to be a well-conceived microcosm of time in the "real world"; therefore, our task as teachers is to focus squarely on content, not on language. Any talk about the L2 should be kept to the bare minimum necessary to address serious grammar problems.

How did the distinction in the foregoing account become so prominent? An emphasis on quasi-naturalistic interaction in the classroom—as opposed to exclusive attention to conscious rule learning—goes at least as far back as the Direct Method, but the split between a language versus a content focus as a guiding orientation largely came with Krashen and Terrell's influence in the late 1970s and a general pedagogical reaction to drill-based curricula (see, for example, Krashen, 1982, Krashen and Terrell 1983). Though few still accept Krashen's more extreme claims, the essential dichotomy survives today in the "focus on form" versus "focus on meaning" literature. In Long and Robinson (1998), for example, a "form" might include "words and collocations, grammar rules, phonemes, intonation and stress patterns, notions or functions"—pretty much anything from the English third person singular suffix to the way in which one phrases a letter of congratulations or expresses complaints. As for the proper classroom role of form-focusing, Long (1991) asserted that "Focus on form [as a pedagogical approach] . . . overtly draws students' attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication" (pp. 45-46). Attention to "linguistic elements," then, excludes attention to something called meaning or communication—and by extension, to content; focus on form is visualized as medicine rather than as sustenance in the usual sense, as the occasional clinical experience rather than as regular exposure to fresh air and sunshine.

Like all dichotomies, the splits between language/content and form/meaning are suspect and, we would argue, largely illegitimate as they have been put into practice. This is not to say that we consider every aspect of the Natural Approach unsound. We are not behaviorists and do not advocate curricula centered on drill, for example. However, we do want to be realistic and recognize that language is part of the real world and can therefore be talked about with as much legitimacy as global warming is talked about. We could point to the existence of linguistics programs at universities and imagine how odd it would be for their faculty to hear that unlike their chemistry or economics colleagues, who engage in content, linguists merely focus on form. In fact, talk about form can be fully "contentful." Moreover, for second language learners, that content can be fully meaningful in all relevant senses of the word: It gets right to the heart of their purpose for being in that classroom. Given the chance to express their preferences on how class time is spent, many prefer focusing attention on aspects of their L2 to focusing on gender roles, the ozone hole, or anything else. It is easy to misread this desire. Whereas some students may actually seek the familiar comforts of pattern practice, others want conscious engagement with the subject that brought them into the class in the first place. For them, talk about English may be a source of fascination—exactly the affective orientation that a Krashenian looks for in a good classroom. Why not indulge this fascination? Our TESOL '07 presentation attempted to sketch the possibilities for reframing the discussion and showing that classroom talk about language can be just as "natural" and at least as beneficial as talk about anything else.

References
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London: Pergamon.

Krashen, S., & T. Terrell. (1983). The natural approach. New York: Pergamon.

Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. deBot, D. Coste, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Long, M., & P. Robinson. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge, England: CUP.


An Experiential Approach to Second Language Education

Barbara Hawkins, Teachers College Columbia University, Hawkins@exchange.tc.columbia.edu

How would the second language classroom appear if researchers took into consideration

  • That language is both the object and the tool of instruction?
  • An experiential approach to our organization of instruction?
  • A more integrated form/meaning approach to teaching the language?

In this article I first briefly discuss some of the underlying theory associated with these questions, and then present an example of a classroom exercise that reflects an experiential approach to second language instruction.

Informing Ideas
During a conversation I had many years ago with Evelyn Hatch, she presented me with a question that occurred in the context of a discussion of "experiential, hands-on, manipulative-based instruction." She asked, "What are the manipulatives for language instruction?" As time has gone by, I have come to realize how prescient the question actually was. This many years later, I have reframed the question within activity theory. The most primary ideas within activity theory are captured by a basic triangle, one that begins by considering the base:

Human beings are engaged in activities that usually have some sort of objective; that is, human activity is rarely, if ever, arbitrary in the sense that it is without some sort of purpose¹. Within the context of activity theory, then, behavior is outcome-directed and actors are engaged in achieving the outcome. In the case of second language instruction, the actors would be the students and the teacher taken together, and at least one object of their activity is for the students to learn a second language. Human activity, however, rarely passes directly from actors to the object. Rather, it is usually mediated by tools, bringing the triangle into being:

A very basic example would be the use of physical counters (tools) used by teacher and students (actors) to help children gain a sense of quantity and number (object). In the case of the second language classroom, however, the actors (teacher and students) find themselves involved in a situation where language serves simultaneously as both the object (what is to be learned) and the tool (mediating means) of learning. It is in this sense that Hatch's question is so provocative; the major tool ("manipulative" in her comment) for learning the language is the language itself, presenting a challenge that is not always recognized in the conceptual design of teaching practices. Another way of phrasing her question, then, might be, "How can language be used as a tool to promote the very learning of that language?" The question blurs the traditional division we have made between form and meaning; that is, if we use language as a tool to support language learning, then the tools of language are in concert with the meaning we are trying to make.

There are, of course, various ways we might organize our instruction, depending on our view of how learning occurs. A sociocultural view (the view adopted here; Donato, 2000; Engeström, 1999; Engeström, Miettinen, & Punamaki, 1999; Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Ohta, 2001; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Wertsch, 1985) would say that all learning is socially situated and constructed, and begins with experience; that is, it is determined in large part by the setting within which it occurs and relies on the experiences that occur in that setting as well as on the previous experiences learners bring to the tasks at hand. Second, from this vantage point, knowledge is dynamic, certainly with a history but always flexible regarding current and future modifications². Finally, because we conceive of language as both tool and object within the classroom setting, student discussions of form are always related to how we use language to make meaning clear to ourselves and others.

An Example of a Classroom Activity Within an Experiential Approach
Because the experiences that occur within the classroom setting are the starting point for planning within this approach, it is essential that we think about the experiences we want our students to have with the language, as both tool and object. The following example represents how one classroom learning experience was structured around the ideas discussed above.

The subjects for this study were 10-year-old children in a heterogeneous classroom composed of both English L1 and L2 students. Though such a situation is perhaps not thought of as the "quintessential" second language classroom, located within this very important second language context is the critical challenge for teachers to offer a curriculum that is simultaneously appropriate for both the L2 and L1 students. The class had been studying the parts of speech via a series of categorizing activities in which the children were required to define the categories. By the time of this activity, the students knew the parts of speech. The teacher began by asking the students, "What are more important—nouns or pronouns?" The students decided nouns were more important because "You can tell what the person or thing is that you are talking about—it's the full thing." The teacher then asked the students to open their readers to a certain page and divided the class in two, asking one group to count the nouns and one to count the pronouns. When it turned out that there were more pronouns than nouns, the teacher asked, "If nouns are more important than pronouns, how come there are more pronouns than nouns?"³ The students didn't have an answer, and the teacher ended class by telling the students that their homework was to listen for examples of people using pronouns and to bring their data to class the next day.

The next day, one girl raised her hand when the teacher asked for examples. She recounted the following:

Remember when we had assembly yesterday and Mrs. Jacobs (the principal) said, "I want to welcome you all back from the winter holidays, and I hope that you all had a good vacation, but that you are ready to get to work once again"? Well, if we didn't have pronouns, she would have had to say, "I want to welcome Susan and Peter and Veronica and Jesus, and everybody else's name back, and I hope Susan and Peter and Veronica and Jesus, and everybody else's name had a good vacation, but that Susan and Peter and Veronica and Jesus, and everybody else's name are ready to work once again." And by that time, assembly would have been over and we would have to leave.

After hearing the child's data sample the teacher and students turned to a discussion of how pronouns help make the language efficient. The students were not given traditional, explicit "form" instruction about pronouns but were asked, rather, to investigate the language experientially via data collection. The data then became the tools that the children used to further build up their understandings about language and to make their meaning clear about how they perceived the role of pronouns. Many of the features of pronouns discussed above came together in this example from the classroom: There was the union of form and meaning, there was the use of language as both tool and object, and the entire lesson was experientially driven via real data.

This is but one example of many that I might have presented, but in closing, I think a next step is to investigate the learning possibilities when such an approach is used long-term and consistently in the second language classroom.

References

Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. New York: Oxford University Press.

Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Engeström, Y., Miettinen R., & Punamaki, R.-L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning and schooling in a social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

¹ There may be dissonance between what the actor/s view as the object of the activity and the actual result of the activity, as well as the many influences that guide their actions in pursuit of the object, intermediate goals en route to the object, and so on. Although extremely important, these features are beyond the scope of this summary.
² This is different from a "transmission" approach in which knowledge is static, representing a reservoir of knowable content; within a static model, knowledge can be "passed on" from knower to learner.
³ Of course, both questions are absurd in a sense, but had the desired effect of engaging the children with the language as both tool and object.


How Talk About Language Emerges Spontaneously in the L2 Classroom

Gabrielle Kahn, Kingsborough Community College, The City University of New York, gk160@columbia.edu

In this article I briefly examine how talk about language—specifically, the language of a narrative—emerged in an ESL class of adult students. Narratives are universal speech events grounded in human action (McEwan & Egan, 1995). They are also highly complex discourse structures. Below I present brief snapshots from one low-level, community-based ESL classroom that track one adult learner's personal story in her second language of English. In these excerpts, Maya's narrative is spontaneously and dialogically negotiated as her text becomes told and retold with others' assistance (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986). This developmental process grows out of a setting in which learners are asked to build their activity with creative content.

Classroom Tasks and Creative Learner Language
As early as 1980, Canale and Swain recognized the importance of learners' involvement in shaping their own dialogue. Outlining their communicative competence framework, the researchers called for classroom activities based in "sociocultural, interpersonal interaction" involving the "unpredictability and creativity" of utterances (p. 29). Here, I contribute to this framework by proposing that students bring their personal voices and experiences to their task. As a teacher and researcher of beginning ESL learners, one of the problems I introduced to the class to draw out these voices and experiences centered on the personal narrative. By guiding low-level learners toward a complex discourse structure in their L2, I aimed to stimulate learners' language development through the telling of their life-lesson stories over time, in collaboration with their teacher and peers (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Ohta, 2001; Vygotsky, 1978, 1986). As a researcher investigating these turn-by-turn interactions, I aimed to expand the body of research on tasks for second language students highlighting the value of "closed" tasks—tasks with preselected content that direct learners toward a single correct outcome (e.g., Long, 1989; Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993). What I wished to explore is what happens when open-ended tasks designed to motivate creative learner language become implemented in a classroom over time. Below I present a glimpse into work on a storytelling task built by teacher and learners together that thereby builds up learners' use of narrative language and their grammatical accuracy.

The Emergence of Narrative Language
I had asked learners in small groups to tell one another a story about a personal lesson learned from their own lives. In the transcript excerpt below, one can see the production of Maya's as she works in a small group with peers Juana and Yali (many interactional details are omitted from the transcript in the following excerpts).

01 ((reading)) when I came from Puer–from the island of
02 Puerto Rico I went shopping with my neighbor.
03 She did something that I didn't like it then I wait
04 for her outside the store. I never trust her to go
05 noplace at all.

A basic narrative is made up of at least two events, in sequential and temporal order (Labov, 1972). At the heart of Maya's text (lines 2-4), one can see a core sequence of events ("I went shopping with my neighbor. She did something"), an evaluation of this local action ("that I didn't like it"), and a resulting action ("then I wait for her outside the store"). Though it contains makings of a basic narrative, I, upon examining the learner-generated texts of Maya and others, observed that these texts could be built up further. I thus decided to revisit this storytelling task with the aim of growing learners' tales with more detail and description. My decision to do so as the classroom teacher was not predetermined but emergent. It grew out of my reading and analysis of the creative stories generated by the learners themselves. In revisiting this life-lesson storytelling task, I asked Maya to retell her story on the classroom floor and guided the students toward developing its orientation section—an aspect of narrative structure that serves as a rich site for details by orienting the audience to aspects of the main action to come such as who was involved and where and when it took place (Labov & Waletzky, 1967; Tannen, 1989). To provide learners with a model for how Maya might solve the problem of developing this section of her text, we, as a class, examined an orientation section in the transcript of a native English speaker's story. Teacher and learners talked about language—specifically, the narrative language employed by this native English speaker in his story—and how it might be used as a resource for the development of Maya's. In the transcript excerpt below, one can see the active participation of one of Maya's classmates, Leo, in this problem-solving activity as he makes his own suggested contribution to her tale. Five lines after the narrator voices the first main event in her narrative on the classroom floor.

Maya: one day I went shopping with my neighbor.

Leo is found to spontaneously propose an addition:

Leo: or maybe she [speaking slowly] can . . . [speeding up]
she can say

And then four lines following:

Leo: one day...when I living whuh-when I was living in . . .
New York . . .

Leo is transforming his classmate's text, suggesting that a new piece of information ("one day when I was living in New York") precede a main action in her story ("I went shopping with my neighbor"). In doing so, Leo displays his intent to develop Maya's narrative by naming where the events in her story took place. Like his teacher, who had guided learners toward a native English speaker's orientation to grow Maya's story, Leo is also suggesting that her tale be expanded with a new orientation clause—an element of deep narrative structure (Labov, 1972). One can also see that within this element, Leo carefully attends to his production of a surface-level structure—a past progressive verb ("was living"). In his research, Labov (1972) wrote that storytellers commonly employ past progressive clauses, thereby "sketching the kind of thing that was going on before the first event of the narrative occurred" (p. 364). The contribution of a beginning learner in his L2 classroom supports this sociolinguist's observation. Leo's past progressive form is serving an important function within the discourse. With a particular verbal structure, he backgrounds a key action to come within a larger narrative structure. Leo's emergent orientational supplement to his classmate's text follows the teacher's emergent efforts at developing this same text with the support of a native English speaker's narrative. A spontaneous, well-formed construction in Leo's L2 has grown out of the joint work by both teacher and learners on a complex task calling for the development of a speech event in English-a task that has asked students not to manipulate predetermined language set by a task designer but to generate creative language of their own.

Concluding Remarks
As second language teachers, we must consider ways to develop challenging classroom tasks that grant learners opportunities to use language spontaneously in collaboration with others. It is also vital that, in examining these creative task products, we respond in emergent ways with new tasks based on the content we see. In doing so, we may foster learners' language development at different levels and layers over time—from larger structures of discourse to the morphosyntactic structures that shape them.

References

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.

Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts. Proceedings of the 1966 Annual Spring Meeting of the American Ethnological Society (pp. 12-44). Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Long, M. H. (1989). Task, group, and task-group interactions. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in ESL, 8(2), 1-26.

McEwan, H., & Egan, K. (1995). Introduction. In H. McEwan & K. Egan (Eds.), Narrative in teaching, learning, and research (pp. vii-2). New York: Teachers College Press.

Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction and research. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-34). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.