Form-Focused Instruction and

Learner Investment in L2
Communication
YASUYO TOMITA NINA SPADA
Department of East Asian Studies Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning
University of Toronto OISE/University of Toronto
130 St. George Street 252 Bloor Street West
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 3H1 Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 1V6
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

The purpose of this study is to examine the role of form-focused instruction (FFI) in relation to learner
investment in second language (L2) communication. Although positive effects of FFI have been
reported, most of this research has been conducted from a cognitive–interactionist perspective. Little
attention has been paid to the social factors of FFI, including learner investment—a desire to learn a
second/foreign language taking into consideration learners’ socially constructed identities (Norton
Peirce, 1995). Drawing on second language socialization theory (Duff, 2007) and using discursive
practices (Young, 2009) as an analytic framework, this study examines how FFI influences learner
investment in L2 communication in the classroom setting. Twenty-four high school students in Japan
participated in a study, where two Japanese teachers of English team-taught four 50-minute lessons. Each
lesson contained a 15-minute exclusively meaning-focused activity and a 15-minute form-focused activity
that included attention to both form and meaning. All students completed both types of activities. Data
were collected through classroom observations, video-recorded classroom interactions, stimulated
recalls, interviews, questionnaires, and diaries, all of which were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively.
The results suggest that FFI created social contexts for learners to establish their identities as L2 learners,
leading to greater investment in L2 communication.
Keywords: form-focused instruction; investment; second language socialization; discursive practice;
second language acquisition; L2 communication

MUCH RESEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED and calls for SLA research that is conducted from
to examine the effects of form-focused instruction a wider range of perspectives, specifically the
(hereafter FFI) on second language (L2) devel- broader social contexts in which L2 learners are
opment and positive effects have been reported situated (e.g., Block, 2003; Firth & Wagner,
(e.g., Norris & Ortega, 2000; Spada, 1997, 2011). 1997, 1998; Zuengler & Miller, 2006). With this
While most of the instructed SLA research has in mind, the present study was designed to
been conducted within a cognitive–interactionist examine the role of FFI in L2 communication
framework, where SLA is regarded as “an and learning from both a cognitive and a social
internalized, cognitive process” (Zuengler & perspective.
Miller, 2006, p. 36), there have been lively debates This research was originally motivated by the
first author’s observations of contradictory behav-
ior in the oral communication of her students at
The Modern Language Journal, 97, 3, (2013) high schools in Japan. When she asked her
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12031.x students to communicate in English during class,
0026-7902/13/591–610 $1.50/0 they were reluctant and rarely communicated in
© 2013 The Modern Language Journal
English. However, when she asked them to
592 The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)

communicate in English and focus their attention stein, & Schecter, 2003). Given such resistance to
on a target grammar structure, the same students L2 communication, it is unlikely that learners will
actively communicated in English. The question create opportunities for noticing or raising their
of why they communicated more in one instruc- awareness about the target language. A lack of
tional activity than the other motivated the opportunity to practice can seriously hinder L2
present study, focusing on the role of FFI in learning given that communication practice is an
relation to learner investment in L2 communica- essential condition for L2 learning (Spolsky,
tion and learning with high school students in 1989).
Japan.
To investigate this question, we conducted a
quasi-experimental study by designing two types COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING
of communicative activities: form-focused (FF) IN JAPAN
activities and meaning-focused (MF) activities.
The former required learners to focus on both In Japan, the notion of communicative
form and meaning, while the latter required competence was first introduced in 1989 in
learners to focus only on meaning. All partic- “The Course of Study,” guidelines provided by
ipants completed both FF and MF activities, which the Japanese government. Oral communication
allowed us to examine whether and how the same classes were established in high school in 1994 in
learners invested in L2 communication during order to develop learners’ communicative com-
the two different types of activities. We used petence (Takahashi, 2000). In 1999, The Course
Young’s (2008, 2009) discursive practice as an of Study emphasized the development of com-
analytical tool of learner investment and discuss municative competence in order to “foster a
the results within the framework of language positive attitude toward communication with
socialization theory, which explains learners’ foreign people” (MEXT, 1999, as translated into
situated behaviors (Duff, 2007; Ochs & English by Takahashi, 2000, p. 3). In 2003, the
Schieffelin, 2008; Watson–Gegeo, 2004). government implemented an action plan to
“cultivate Japanese with English abilities,” which
FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION further stressed “students’ basic and practical
communication abilities” (MEXT, 2003, para. 6).
In the instructed SLA literature, diverse bene- In spite of government efforts to encourage
fits of FFI on L2 development have been reported teachers to teach communicatively in order to
(Norris & Ortega, 2000; Spada, 2011). These have improve learners’ communicative abilities, many
included instructional techniques such as correc- learners are reluctant to communicate in English
tive feedback, pushed output, and explicit gram- in communication-focused classrooms (e.g.,
mar explanation (for reviews, see Li, 2010; Lyster Greer, 2000; Kusano Hubbell, 2002). During
& Saito, 2010; Mackey & Goo, 2007; Russell & the first author’s professional practice as an EFL
Spada, 2006; Spada & Tomita, 2010). The teacher in Japan, she also witnessed learners’
assumption among SLA researchers is that the reluctance to communicate with their peers in
effectiveness of FFI is mainly due to noticing and English. Some studies have reported learners’
to raising learners’ awareness of the target L2 reluctance to communicate in English in Japa-
linguistic features. This is considered as support nese EFL classrooms. For example, Kusano
for the Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 2001) and Hubbell’s (2002) classroom case study describes
the claim that noticing promotes L2 learning her own English teaching experience at a
(e.g., Egi, 2010). Japanese university, where efforts to bring com-
In much of the research investigating FFI, munication into the classroom often led to
learners’ attention is drawn to form as they students’ negative attitudes toward listening to a
engage in communicative interaction. However, Japanese instructor (i.e., Kusano Hubbell herself)
there seems to be an unquestioned assumption speaking English. Greer (2000) also describes
that learners will communicate in the L2 when how his Japanese students were reluctant to
they are asked to do so. This is not the case in all communicate in English during his communica-
second language classroom settings. On the tive lessons and how one student intentionally
contrary, learners’ resistance and silence has spoke English with a strong Japanese accent and
been documented in many second language with grammar errors because she was afraid that
classes, foreign language classes, and multilingual others might think, “Who does she think she is?”
mainstream classes (Canagarajah, 2001; Duff, (p. 184). Greer interprets her pretending to be a
2001; Goldstein, 2003; Heller, 2006; Pon, Gold- poor English speaker as an attempt to satisfy what
Yasuyo Tomita and Nina Spada 593

her peers wanted others to do: to speak English DISCURSIVE PRACTICE AS AN ANALYTICAL
with nonnative-like fluency and accuracy. FRAMEWORK
These studies provide compelling evidence that
some Japanese EFL learners are reluctant to For the purpose of investigating learners’
communicate in English, especially when the investment in L2 communication, we used
main focus of the lesson is on communication. Young’s (2008, 2009) discursive practice as an
The consequences are considerable, particularly analytical tool to examine learners’ utterances,
with regard to an expected decrease in the level of gestures, and self-reported data. Young (2008)
Japanese learners’ English proficiency. In fact, the defines discursive practice as talk activities that
decrease in students’ English proficiency has “have their own rules, their own constraints, and
been regularly reported since the government their own structures” (p. 57). According to Young,
began emphasizing oral communication in the discursive practice illustrates what people do, how
English curriculum in the 1990s (Ito, 2008; people behave, and how others react to it.
Matsumura, 2009; Suzuki, 2010). For example, Park (2007) investigated the
As previously mentioned, the first author discursive practice of conversational interactions
observed such reluctance in her classrooms between nonnative and native speakers of En-
when teaching at high schools in Japan. Interest- glish. Drawing on Goodwin’s (1987) findings on
ingly, however, she also noticed that the same collaborative word search, where participants co-
students who were reluctant to participate in constructed their social identities, Park showed
exclusively communication-focused activities did that her participants co-constructed their asym-
engage in communicative activities that included metrical social identities as native speakers and
a focus on target grammar structures. To better nonnative speakers through searching for vocab-
understand Japanese EFL learners’ reluctance to ulary words collaboratively. Nonnative speakers
engage in communication in the L2 classroom we displayed their uncertainty about the correct
found it helpful to consult the literature on L2 word or correct pronunciation of a word, playing
learner investment and identity. the role of “requestor” (p. 343). On the other
hand, the native speakers played the roles of
“requestees” (p. 343). She argued that such
INVESTMENT asymmetrical social identities led to successful
Norton Peirce (1995) defines investment as a and engaging communication because both
learner’s “ambivalent desire to learn” (p. 17) the speaker groups publicly displayed their identities
target language with a consideration of the and performed their roles. That is, when they
learner’s “socially and historically constructed knew what roles they were assigned, they found it
relationship” (p. 17) to the target language. comfortable to play the role because they knew
Drawing on Bourdieu’s (1977) economic meta- what kind of behaviours would be appropriate
phors, she argues that learners invest in language and expected in a given situation to perform the
learning in order to gain symbolic and material socially co-constructed identities.
resources that are distributed in society. Norton As Park’s (2007) study shows, discursive prac-
(2000) refers to Bourdieu’s (1977) notion of right tice was useful in describing how people co-
to speak and considers that learners’ occasional construct identities, use language, and interact
silence or reluctance to communicate signifies with each other. This led us to employ this analytic
their lack of access to that right. framework to examine learner investment in L2
Several researchers have incorporated Norton communication, where learner identity, lan-
Peirce’s notion of investment in L2 research (e.g., guage, and social interactions are interrelated.
Byrd Clark, 2008; Kanno, 2003; Kim, 2008; McKay More details about discursive practice are provid-
& Wong, 1996; Norton, 2000). These studies have ed in the methodology section.
documented learners’ complex and contradictory
investment in language learning and identities LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION
within different contexts. In the present study
investigating learner investment in the foreign Language socialization is a useful framework to
language classroom, the goal is to explore explain learners’ linguistic and non-linguistic
whether and how FFI plays a role in creating behaviors in relation to learner investment.
contexts in which students are more willing to Language socialization is an interactional process
participate in communication activities, as well as of gaining access to membership in a community
how learners gain the right to speak during form- through language, which is associated with beliefs
focused activities. and values among the community members
594 The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)

(Duff, 2002, 2007). Language socialization also Materials

exhibits “expected ways of thinking, feeling, and
acting” (Ochs, 1986, p. 2) in the community. Ochs The first author observed the English class
(1986) provides a comprehensive description of eight times prior to the instructional intervention.
language socialization as “both socialization These classroom observations were necessary in
through language and socialization to use lan- order to develop instructional intervention ma-
guage” (p. 2). Ochs and Schieffelin (1984) terials that were appropriate and familiar to both
convincingly argue that language acquisition is participating teachers and students. During the
part of the process of socialization into a observations, the first author kept a record of
community and that the beliefs and values of the activities, using a modified version of Part A of the
community affect learners’ language develop- COLT scheme (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995).
ment. The main contributions of language sociali- Through the observations, it was found that the
zation studies are that they present multiple most common types of activities involved pair or
identity roles that a person plays using language group work, writing tasks, and oral presentations.
and reveal social structures through examining Thus, we decided to develop materials that
how people use language (Cole & Zuengler, 2003; consisted of writing tasks and oral presentations,
Watson–Gegeo, 2004). Therefore, “close examina- all of which would be completed within small
tion of actual talk” (Zuengler & Cole, 2005, p. 313) groups of four or five students. Four grammatical
is essential in language socialization studies. forms were selected from the students’ course
We were particularly inspired by second lan- textbook to serve as target features for the
guage socialization studies that examine utter- instructional treatment: comparatives, condition-
ances and behaviors that encourage or hinder als, passives, and formal object it. We then
further communication, such as repetitions developed two different sets of instructional
(Duff, 2000), incomplete turn-constructional activities with the target features, piloted them,
units (He, 2003), silence (Pon et al., 2003), and and revised them based on feedback from the
negative reactions from peers (Pon et al., 2003). pilot study participants.
The following research questions motivated
this research: Instructional Treatment
1. Do FF and MF activities differ in terms The instructional treatment consisted of four
of the amount of learner verbal comm- 50-minute sessions that took place during the
unication? participants’ regular English class periods. Each
2. Do FF and MF activities differ in terms of session included two communicative activities: an
learners’ access to linguistic, identity, and exclusively meaning-focused (MF) activity and an
interactional resources? If so, to what extent activity that included attention to both form and
is learner investment in L2 communication meaning (i.e., form-focused [FF] activity). They
related to FF activities? were each 15 minutes in length. Prior to these
activities, students participated in a warm-up
activity and a review/explanation of the target
METHODS grammar. After the activities, students participat-
Participants ed in a group presentation. Table 1 shows how the
instructional treatment sessions unfolded, using
The data were collected over one year at a Day 1 as an example.
senior high school in Japan. The participants were As Table 1 shows, all students received the same
24 female high school students from one class. instruction about grammar rules associated with
They were first year high school students (15–16 the target features at the beginning of the class.
years old) in the English program at the begin- The students were divided into two instructional
ning of the study and second year students (16–17 groups during the 30-minute treatment period,
years old) at the end of the study. The first author during which one group completed a 15-minute
selected 10 students as focal participants1 who FF activity, followed by a 15-minute MF activity,
were then assigned to two groups of five (i.e., while the other group completed the activities in
Groups A and B)2 during the instructional the opposite order. It is important to emphasize
treatment. Also, two Japanese teachers of English, that all of the participants completed both types
Mr. Matsuda and Mr. Honda,3 participated in this of instructional activities in each treatment lesson.
study, and they team-taught the instructional Figure 1 shows how the FF and MF communi-
treatment lessons. cative activities differed, using the instructional
Yasuyo Tomita and Nina Spada 595
TABLE 1
Instructional Treatment on Day 1 (50 Minutes)

Time Type of Activity Group/Whole Class

5 minutes Warm-up activity: Crossword puzzle Groups of five
5 minutes Review/explanation of the target grammar: Comparatives Whole class
15 minutes Activity 1: Communicative Activity Groups of five
“Comparing Tokyo and Takano-City”
Group A: FF activity
Group B: MF activity
15 minutes Activity 2: Communicative Activity Groups of five
“Making a commercial about Takano-City”
Group A: MF activity
Group B: FF activity
10 minutes Group Presentation: Group presentation
Presentation of each group’s commercial to the whole class

materials from Day 1. As shown in Figure 1, the instructional treatment lessons. All of the audio-
content of both sets of activities was the same; the and video-recorded learner interaction data
only difference was whether students were asked during instructional treatment lessons were
to use the target form, in this case the comparative transcribed.
structure, during their interactions and pay atten-
tion to it (i.e., FF activities) or not (i.e., MF
activities). Stimulated Recalls and Follow-Up Interviews
Table 2 presents the complete procedures of
the instructional treatment lessons. As shown in The ten focal students participated in stimulat-
Table 2, the effects of target grammar forms, ed recalls in Japanese.4 After each instructional
topics, teachers, and orders of FF/MF activities treatment lesson, the focal students came to a
were counterbalanced in order to minimize meeting room in the high school building after
order effects. The two teachers worked with school to participate in 20-minute stimulated
both groups over the four instructional treatment recall sessions.5 The videotaped interactions
lessons. When interacting with the FF group, the during the FF/MF activities were used to stimulate
teacher provided feedback on content and form, recalls. Prior to the stimulated recall session, the
such as metalinguistic corrective feedback and first author watched the videotape and selected
explicit correction. When interacting with the MF approximately three segments from the FF activi-
group, the teacher provided feedback only on ties and three segments from the MF activities that
content. illustrated the participants’ active participation in
L2 communication as well as their reluctance to
communicate in L2. The selected segments for
Data Collection Instruments each stimulated recall session lasted a total of ten
minutes (i.e., playback time), with five minutes
Data were collected through diaries, observa- from FF and five minutes from MF activities.
tions, audio- and video-recorded classroom inter- Originally, we had planned to use a computer
actions, motivation questionnaires (Yashima, lab at the high school to conduct oral stimulated
2002), emotional temperature questionnaires recalls, where students would verbalize their
(Imai, 2007), stimulated recalls, and interviews. recalls into a microphone individually. However,
The data collection schedule is shown in Table 3. due to circumstances beyond our control, it was
In this article, we report results from the not possible to use the computer lab. Therefore,
classroom interactions, stimulated recalls, and we decided to conduct written stimulated recalls
interviews. in one of the regular meeting rooms, instead of
oral stimulated recalls. Each group of five
participants (i.e., Group A and Group B) came
Audio- and Video-Recorded Classroom Interactions
to the room, watched the video together, and
The first author audio- and videotaped the five individually wrote down what they had been
focal participants in each group during the four thinking or feeling at the time of the event.
596 The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)
FIGURE 1
Samples of FF (left) and MF (right) Activities: Activity 1 and Activity 2 on Day 1

Activity 1

(First 15 minutes during the 30-minute treatment period)

Dear Lucy, Dear Lucy,

Thank you very much for your letter. I Thank you very much for your letter. I

am very happy that you are interested in am very happy that you are interested in

studying in Japan as an exchange student. I studying in Japan as an exchange student. I

would like to answer your questions about would like to answer your questions about

Takano and Tokyo. Use as many Takano and Tokyo.

comparatives as possible

( ).

Environment: Environment:

____________________________ ______________________________

Life style: Life style:

____________________________ ______________________________

Public transportation: Public transportation:

____________________________ ______________________________

House: House:

____________________________ ______________________________

Food: Food:

____________________________ ______________________________

People: People:

____________________________ ______________________________

Activity 2

(Second 15 minutes during the 30-minute treatment period)

You would like Lucy to study as an You would like Lucy to study as an

exchange student in Takano rather than in exchange student in Takano rather than in

Tokyo. You asked your classmates to make a Tokyo. You asked your classmates to make a

collection of commercials to advertise Takano collection of commercials to advertise Takano

and send it to Lucy. Work in a group and make and send it to Lucy. Work in a group and make

a 30-second commercial so that Lucy will a 30-second commercial so that Lucy will

choose Takano rather than Tokyo. Create a choose Takano rather than Tokyo. Create a

commercial script. commercial script.

Use as many comparatives as possible

)
).
Yasuyo Tomita and Nina Spada 597
TABLE 2
Procedures of Instructional Treatment

Mr. Mr.
Day Grammar Topics of two activities on each day Group A Group B Matsuda Honda
Day 1 Comparatives Tokyo and Takano: Comparison FF MF FF MF
Tokyo and Takano: Commercial MF FF FF MF
Day 2 Conditionals Home stay: Communication MF FF FF MF
Home stay: Foods FF MF FF MF
Day 3 Passives Australia and Japan: Knowledge MF FF MF FF
Australia and Japan: Getting information FF MF MF FF
Day 4 Formal object it Future: Dreams FF MF MF FF
Future: Jobs MF FF MF FF
Note: Day 1 and Day 2 were on Lesson 1 of the participants’ textbook, while Day 3 and Day 4 were on Lesson 2.
These two days on each lesson were consecutive school days.

After completing two consecutive instructional thoughts during the FF and MF activities.
treatment lessons (e.g., lessons on Days 1 and 2), Students were shown what they had written
followed by the stimulated recalls for each when watching themselves during the FF and
treatment lesson, each student came to a meeting MF activities to help them remember why they
room individually and completed a 10-minute had experienced such feelings and emotions.
follow-up interview on the written stimulated
recalls (see Table 3). The follow-up interview was Interviews
conducted in Japanese. The main purpose of this
interview was to clarify what the students had A longer (twenty-minute)6 semi-structured
written during the stimulated recall session and to interview was conducted in Japanese with the 10
ask questions about their feelings, emotions, and focal participants three times: at the beginning of

TABLE 3
Data Collection Schedule

Year Month Data Collection

2007 December Interviews with the 10 focal and 4 focal candidate students
Students kept weekly diaries
2008 January–May Students kept weekly diaries from January to May 2008
Students kept daily diaries during the school trip in March 2008
May 13 (Tue) Questionnaire (2:20–2:40)
Started diary collection
May 15 (Thu) Instructional Treatment: Day 1 (2:20–3:10)
Written Stimulated Recall and Emotional Temperature:
Group A and Group B (20 minutes each)
May 16 (Fri) Instructional Treatment: Day 2 (8:50–9:40)
Written Stimulated Recall and Emotional Temperature:
Group A and Group B (20 minutes each)
May 20, 21, and 22 10-Minute Follow-up Interview on Stimulated Recall
May 23 (Fri) Instructional Treatment: Day 3 (8:50–9:40)
Written Stimulated Recall and Emotional Temperature:
Group A and Group B (20 minutes each))
May 26 (Mon) Instructional Treatment: Day 4 (11:50–12:40)
Written Stimulated Recall and Emotional Temperature:
Group A and Group B 20 minutes each
May 27, 28, and 29 10-Minute Follow-up Interview on Stimulated Recall
June Interview
June–December Student kept weekly diaries
2008–2009 December–January Classroom Observation (December 2008)
Interview
Diary Collection
598 The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)

the study, after the instructional treatment, and at role is not official hearer), and a non-ratified
the end of the study. The purpose of the initial participant (i.e., the person whose existence is not
interview was to obtain information about the known by the participants).
students’ English learning history. The second Linguistic resources consist of register and
interview was conducted to ask learners to further mode of meaning (Young, 2008, 2009). Register
explain the reasons for their thoughts and includes vocabulary, grammar, and pronuncia-
feelings that they had provided during the tion used during interactions, as well as paralin-
stimulated recall sessions and follow-up inter- guistic features (e.g., speed). Mode of meaning
views. The main purpose of the last interview was shows the ways of making meaning among the
to ask students about their behaviors, such as participants, such as interpersonal, experiential,
silence or active participation, that were noticed and textual. Interactional resources include turn-
during the classroom observations. taking, repair, boundaries (i.e., the opening and
closing of a practice), and non-linguistic charac-
ANALYSIS teristics (Young, 2008, 2009). As Young suggests,
the selection of the next speaker and the nature of
Turn Analysis repair can reveal power relations among partic-
ipants. Non-linguistic characteristics include ges-
In order to investigate the first research tures, facial expressions, clothing, positioning of
question about the amount of verbal communi- the body, and eye contact (Young, 2008, 2009).
cation learners produced, we used turns as the Although Young provides detailed character-
unit of analysis. According to Ellis (1994), a turn istics of each resource, some of them did not
ends when the interlocutor stops talking or is appear in our data. Therefore, only those
interrupted by other interlocutors. The first characteristics that appeared frequently in our
author coded the use of L1 Japanese and L2 data are discussed in this study. For identity
English for each turn. The participants did not resources, we decided to focus on animator,
use L2 English as frequently as we had expected. author, official hearer, and ratified participants.
Furthermore, the participants often mixed the L1 For linguistic resources, we focused only on
and L2 in the same turn. Thus, all utterances with register features, such as pronunciation, vocabu-
at least one English word were coded as an L2 lary, and grammar. For interactional resources,
turn. Similarly, all utterances with at least one we focused only on repair and non-linguistic
Japanese word were coded as an L1 turn. characteristics. Young’s (2008, 2009) definitions
Therefore, one turn could be coded both as an for resources were followed closely except for the
L1 and L2 turn. For example, the turn, “I went to definition of author in identity resources. We
gakko,” where the Japanese word gakko is ‘school’ extended its definition to include a person whose
in English, was coded both as an L1 and L2 turn. utterances were repeated in other participants’
After coding all of the turns, the frequencies of utterances. Since there were many repetitions
each category (i.e., L1 and L2) were tallied for the among our participants, it seemed important to
individual focal participants and groups during identify whose utterances were adopted and
FF and MF activities. repeated as an “author” in later utterances.

Discursive Practice Analysis RESULTS

We used Young’s (2008, 2009) discursive Results of Turn Analysis
practice as an analytical framework. According
to Young, discursive practices consist of identity, The results of the number of turns in the L1
linguistic, and interactional resources. Identity and L2 are presented in Table 4. There were more
resources can be examined in terms of partic- turns in the L1 (i.e., Japanese) than in the L2 (i.e.,
ipants’ roles as speakers or hearers. The roles of English) in both FF and MF activities. The
speaker can be animator (i.e., the current participants also produced equally few turns in
speaker), author (i.e., the source of the original English regardless of the nature of the interaction
idea), and principal (i.e., someone whose political with 396 turns during FF activities and 421 turns
view has a strong impact on the interaction). The during MF activities. This means that the average
hearer can be an official hearer (i.e., the person number of L2 turns produced by a participant was
whom the animator is directly speaking to), a 9.9 during a FF activity and 10.5 during a MF
ratified participant (i.e., the person whose exis- activity. The difference in the average number of
tence is known among the participants but whose turns between FF and MF activities was less than
Yasuyo Tomita and Nina Spada 599
TABLE 4 during the MF activities. Both sets of results are
Number of Turns in L1 and in L2 During FF and MF presented in relation to the participants’ self-
Activities reported data in the stimulated recalls and
L1 Japanese L2 English interviews. As illustrated in these results, there
are striking differences in the nature of the
Group Day FF MF FF MF interactions that take place among learners in the
Group A 1 110 104 84 68 FF and MF activities. Space limitations do not
2 89 59 35 41 permit more examples of the interactional data.
3 79 133 24 50 However, what is presented is representative of
4 110 91 44 43 the differences in learner interaction across the
Group B 1 93 102 95 95 MF and FF activities.
2 56 91 44 57 Example 1 presents interactions7 during FF
3 42 23 27 16
activity on Day 1, where the participants were
4 44 42 43 51
Total 623 645 396 421
asked to make a TV commercial script to advertise
their hometown. They were also asked to use
comparatives as a target grammar form.

EXAMPLE 1: FF Activity on Day 18

81 Sato Next, you should (.) should see? ((Sato smiles and looks at members’ faces. Sato moves
her arms to make a circle from her eyes, to the front, and to the sides.)) Is this okay
because we are talking about Mt. Midori? ((Sato makes eye contact with Mika.))
82 Mika I agree that we can see things from Mt. Midori, but how about climb? ((Tami, Sato, and Nao
look at Mika.))
83 Sato I see. Climb? (Sato looks at Waka’s paper, and Sato looks confused.)) Does climb mean
climb? ((Sato looks at Mika. Mika and Nao nods.)) Is that tiring? ((Sato points at Waka’s
paper, smiles and looks at Mika and Waka. Nao moves her head back, moves her hands
forward and laughs. The others laugh, too.))
84 Nao Isn’t it too tiring? ((Nao smiles.)) How about in the opposite order?
85 Mika Yeah, then we can both climb the mountain and have a nice view from there.
86 Tami You should see, you should see, see. ((Tami moves her hand as she speaks.))
87 Waka View. ((Tami looks at Sato.))
88 Tami The view of Mt. Midori. View of Mt. Midori. ((Tami and Mika look at each other.))
89 Sato Like they are very beautiful. ((Sato looks at Waka, and then she smiles at and looks at
Mika. Mika nods.))
90 Waka Also has very beautiful view. ((Sato looks at Wata and nods.))

expected. On the basis of this finding and the As shown in Example 1, the participants spoke
small number of participants, no statistical in English and exhibited a variety of identity roles.
comparisons were conducted. For example, one of the participants, Mika, was an
The results do not support the prediction that animator (at turns 82 and 85), official hearer (at
participants would produce a greater amount of turns 81, 83, 88, and 89), and a ratified participant
L2 communication during FF activities than (at turns 86, 87, and 90). She also became an
during MF activities. However, because invest- author as other members repeated and discussed
ment is not measured simply in terms of linguistic what Mika had said at turns 83 and 84. Regarding
production, the results from the discursive the linguistic resources, the word ‘climb’ was
practice analysis may shed more light on the discussed because Sato was not sure about the
role of learner investment in the participants’ meaning of the word and asked for confirmation.
communication. There were many incomplete short turns with
repetitions, and they seemed to complement to
each other’s sentences.
Results of Discursive Practice During FF Activities In terms of interactional resources, at turn 82,
Mika initiated a repair of Sato’s use of “see” by
In this section, we present the results of the using another verb, “climb.” Then, at turn 83, Sato
discursive practice analyses during FF activities. initiated a repair of Mika’s use of “climb,”
This is followed by the discursive practice analyses followed by Nao’s repair of the order of the use
600 The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)

of “see” and “climb.” There was also a great deal of It is embarrassing to show a different self [by speaking in
eye contact among the participants, gestures, English] because we always communicate in Japanese.
body movements (e.g., nodding), and laughter (Sato, Interview, December 2008)
during this interaction.
As the descriptions of identity, linguistic, and I cannot speak English in front of my Japanese classmates….
interactional resources of the discursive practices They might think I am showing off.
show, the participants seemed to create a support- (Keiko, Interview, June 2008)
ive and pleasant learning environment by produc-
ing incomplete short turns, repeating what others Regarding the contradiction between their reluc-
had said, providing each other with feedback, and tance to speak English and their actual use of
making eye contact. This supportive environment English during FF activities, some of the partic-
seemed to be triggered by Sato’s question about ipants commented as follows:
the meaning of the word ‘climb,’ which resulted in
cheerful laughter, frequent eye contact and If I am told to use a certain grammar form, I usually find it
nodding, and L2 turns. All group members easy to make story lines. I can see the direction of the story
seemed to be actively engaged in L2 communica- based on the given grammar form…. I felt my opinions were
tion, especially after Sato expressed her difficulty accepted more when we were told to use a certain grammar
with understanding the word ‘climb.’ This en- form than when we were not told to do so.
gagement is clearly reflected in Mika’s excitement (Mika, Interview, June 2008)
reported in her stimulated recalls and follow-up
interview about the FF activity on Day 1: When I am told to use past tense or some kind of grammatical
structures for communication, I get motivated.
(Hana, interview, December 2008)
We got many ideas about the stories, and I was excited, too.
(Mika, Stimulated Recall, FF Activity on Day 1)9
These excerpts suggest that the participants were
It was fun to think about the story. I was thinking that I encouraged to invest in L2 communication
could think of more stories and I was not worried about during FF activities because the instruction to
expressing opinions. use a target grammar structure stimulated their
(Mika, Follow-up, FF Activity on Day 1) ideas, made them feel accepted and motivated
them to speak in English. This is illustrated in the
It is interesting to note that the participants spoke Example 2.
in English, even though they reported their In Example 2, the participants were asked to
reluctance to speak English in front of their compare two cities using comparative forms.
classmates. Similar to Example 1, this example also shows
that (a) participants exhibited a variety of identity
roles; (b) there were various interactional resour-
I try to speak as little English as possible in class…. Of course,
I want to speak English fluently and want to pronounce ces such as frequent eye contact; and (c)
English like a native English speaker. But it is embarrassing participants produced incomplete turns in L2
if I speak English as if I were a native speaker but I am with repetitions. What we would like to emphasize
actually making mistakes and pronouncing incorrectly. here is that the participants’ difficulty with
(Aiko, Interview, December 2008) grammar led to L2 communication in this

EXAMPLE 2: FF Activity on Day 1

48 Aiko And beautiful ((Emi glances at Aiko)) more [Tokyo]. ((Aiko puts her head on her right
arm and covers her mouth with her right hand. She looks at Emi.))
49 Keiko [Is]
50 Hana Is
51 Aiko It’s more beautiful. ((Aiko looks at Emi. Emi looks at Aiko.))
52 Keiko More.
53 Aiko More beautiful. ((Chika looks at Aiko. Aiko looks at Emi.))
54 Keiko Then, Takano-City has.
55 Hana Water.
56 Aiko Right. Well, ((Emi smiles at Aiko and then laughs)) never mind. When there are three, we have
to use more, right? Beautiful, interesting ((Aiko raises her three fingers as pronouncing
each syllable)).
57 Emi Important ((Emi nods. Aiko scratches her head)).
Yasuyo Tomita and Nina Spada 601

example. Specifically, Aiko’s mistake with the the questions she was asked. That is, following
target grammar form (i.e., comparatives) at turn Mika’s utterance at turn 63 (“My dream is English
48 resulted in active, engaging communication in teacher”), Sato requested Nao to ask the next
English with frequent eye contact, smiles, and question without responding to Mika’s utterance.
gestures. Similarly, after Mika’s next utterance at turn 66 (“I
What we see in Examples 1 and 2 was observed like children”), there was silence for about
fairly consistently among our participants dur- 5 seconds and Nao asked Sato if she could use
ing FF activities. This was particularly evident Sato’s electronic dictionary. Again, Mika did not
when the participants were experiencing diffi- receive any feedback or response to what she had
culty with vocabulary (Example 1) or grammar said. Finally, after Mika said “Study English very
(Example 2) resulting in L2 communication, hard” at turn 71, Waka and Tami talked to each
most of which consisted of incomplete turns and other, while Sato and Nao focused on other
repetitions. Verbal feedback, cheerful laughter, things—writing sentences and looking up words
frequent eye contact, and nodding also encour- in the dictionary, respectively. Without any
aged others to continue communication in L2. response or reference to what Mika had said,
In the next section, we present some of the she failed to become an official hearer or an
results of discursive practice during MF author in this example.
activities. In terms of the interactional resources, there
was no repair and little eye contact in Example
3.10 Although Nao and Sato looked at Mika when
Results of Discursive Practice During MF Activities they asked her questions, Mika rarely received any
eye contact from them when she was speaking or
Example 3 presents interactions during the MF completed her turn. Instead, after Mika’s turn,
activity on Day 4, where students were discussing her group members started either talking to
future dreams.

EXAMPLE 3: MF Activity on Day 4

62 Tami ((Reading aloud a text)) <What is your dream? What do you want to be in the [future]?>
((Sato looks at Tami and writes. Nao looks at Tami, Mika, and Sato’s paper.))
63 Mika [My dream] is English teacher. Can I tell my dream? ((Nao looks at Waka.))
64 Sato Nao, could you ask Mika the next question? ((Sato looks at the paper and points at the paper. Nao
leans forward over the desk, holding her towel.))
65 Nao ((Reading aloud a text)) <What do you find> (.) attractive about <your dream > ? ((Nao
looks at Mika and Sato’s paper.))
66 Mika I (.) I like children. ((Nao glanced at Mika and then looks at Sato’s paper.))
67 Nao Sato, may I use your dictionary? ((Nao puts her towel on her lap, stretches her arm to Sato’s
electronic dictionary and opens it.))
68 Sato Sure. Waka, could you read the next question? ((Sato shows the paper to Waka and points at a
sentence. Nao switches on the electronic dictionary and starts typing.))
69 Waka ((Reading aloud a text)) What do you think important to make the dream come true? ((Nao
looks up words in the electronic dictionary.))
70 Sato What do you have to do to make your dream come true? ((Sato looks at Mika. Nao looks up words in
the electronic dictionary.))
71 Mika Study English very hard. Right? ((Sato writes. Nao looks up words in the electronic
dictionary.))
72 Waka Well… ((Sato writes. Nao looks up words in the electronic dictionary.))
73 Tami Super easy. ((Sato writes. Nao looks up words in the electronic dictionary.))
74 Waka All of my answers were “nothing” and “I don’t know.” You know, I am a girl of the new generation.
((Sato writes. Nao looks up words in the electronic dictionary.))

In this MF activity, the participants produced another member other than Mika (e.g., turns 64,
more English utterances than in any other FF or 67, and 72), looking at the paper (e.g., turns 64
MF activities. This may have been due to the and 66), looking up words in a dictionary (e.g.,
format of the question–answer task. Interestingly, turns 71 and 72), or writing sentences (e.g., turns
however, there was little direct interaction. For 71 and 72). As shown in this example, the
example, no one directly addressed Mika, or participants did not have opportunities to display
responded to her even though she responded to difficulty with vocabulary or grammar, which led
602 The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)

to limited access to identity and interactional stimulated recalls in this interaction revealed
resources necessary for successful comm- negative reactions to Aiko’s English turns as
unication. presented below:
The next example presents another set of
interactions during the MF activity completed by Everybody looks stupid, but actually they are smart.
another group on Day 4, when students were (Hana)
discussing different types of jobs.

EXAMPLE 4: MF Activity on Day 4

85 Aiko Communication skill. To build a good relative ship. ((Keiko smiles at Hana. Aiko points at
her card with her pen.))
86 Keiko Relationship? ((Keiko smiles and looks at Aiko’s card.))
87 Aiko Right. Study and to the student parent. ((Hana yawns loudly.)) English teacher need
communication skill. Okay! ((Aiko looks at Keiko. Keiko and Chika look at Aiko’s card.))
88 Chika Aiko, you do pretty good, don’t you? ((Aiko looks at Chika. Keiko looks at her own paper.))
89 Aiko Yep. ((Aiko nods, smiling proudly.))
90 Hana Oh, she admitted it. ((Hana and Aiko laugh.)) She always pretends to be stupid. ((Hana taps her
desk with her pen. Emi looks at Hana.)) She pretends like ((Hana changes her tone of voice and
uses a high pitch tone. Also, Hana puts her index fingers to her cheeks, shakes her head, and
purses her lips.)) “Oh, I cannot do it. I cannot understand it!” ((Hana changes her tone of voice
to her regular, lower tone of voice.)) But the truth is that she is like, “Oh, it’s super easy!” ((Hana
points at Aiko with her left hand and moves her right hand in the air as if she is writing
answers smoothly and easily.)) Actually, she also reads books. [She reads newspaper, too.] (Hana
looks at Keiko.))
91 Keiko [In her heart,] she is actually thinking that this is so easy. (Keiko smiles and looks at Aiko.))
92 Hana She reads books and newspaper, too. ((Keiko smiles and looks at Aiko, gently stroking Aiko’s
knees.))
93 Emi She’s pretending.¼
94 Keiko ¼ She’s pretending. ((Keiko smiles and looks at Aiko, gently stroking Aiko’s knees.))
95 Hana She knows a lot about politics, too.
96 Emi There are those kinds of people. ¼
97 Aiko ¼ Those who pretend to be stupid. ((Keiko looks at Aiko.))
98 Hana Well, then, who is the leader of China? ((Keiko looks at Aiko. Aiko moves her legs and body to
look at Hana directly.))
99 Aiko XXX. Is that right? ((Aiko holds her towels and looks at Hana.))
100 Hana Hahaha. (Hana, Aiko, and Keiko laugh.))

The interactions in this example were initiated Hana is so cute. Aiko is pretending to be stupid but actually
in English by Aiko. Similar to Example 3, however, she is smart.
her utterance in English did not lead to further (Keiko)
communication in English. Instead, Aiko received
sarcastic comments about her use of English, such Because Hana criticized Aiko in this example, the
as “Aiko, you do pretty good, don’t you?” and the rest of first author asked her to explain this in a
the interactions was conducted in Japanese. Hana subsequent interview. She provided the following
criticized Aiko for pretending to be stupid, by response:
using gestures, body movements, and tones of I admire those people who are good at math or science.
voice to illustrate how Aiko pretended to be stupid Of course, I also admire those people who are good at English,
when she was actually smart. Similar to Example 3, but actually they make me feel annoyed. It’s annoying. I
there was little opportunity for participants to would get angry and wonder why only you are good at
express their difficulty with grammar or vocabu- English even though we take the same class at school…. I
lary, which resulted in lack of identity, linguistic, always wonder and upset about why I cannot do it while
and interactional resources that encourage learn- others can. I have this feeling only to English. Maybe that’s
ers to communicate in English. Thus, this because I like English.
example demonstrates how tensions between (Hana, Interview, June, 2008)
Aiko and her peers were likely related to Aiko’s Although such strong verbal criticisms of using
attempt to communicate in English without English were documented only in Example 4, the
establishing her identity as a learner by displaying discursive practices illustrated in Examples 3 and
her difficulty with grammar or vocabulary. The 4 were regularly observed during MF activities. In
Yasuyo Tomita and Nina Spada 603

summary, there rarely existed opportunities for Grammar and Investment in L2 Communication
learners to show linguistic difficulty and display
their identities as language learners in MF The second research question investigated
activities. Even though participants produced whether learners’ access to linguistic, identity,
utterances in English, their utterances received and interactional resources differed in MF and FF
no reaction or triggered unfavourable reactions activities, and if so, to what extent learner
from their peers. investment in L2 communication was related to
FF activities. Although the participants rarely
communicated in English during the classroom
interactional treatment activities, there were some
occasions where they did. The analyses of
DISCUSSION discursive practices during FF activities revealed
three interactional behaviours that enhanced
Limited L2 Use communication in English: collaborative word/
In response to the first research question, vocabulary search, incomplete turn-construction-
whether there were differences in the amount of al units, and repetitions.
verbal communication depending on type of Furthermore, the discursive practice analysis of
instructional activity, the results showed that the FF activities showed that the participants used
learners produced equally few English turns English after they displayed difficulty with gram-
and used more L1 Japanese than L2 English in mar or vocabulary. Why students spoke English
both FF and MF activities. Therefore, based on a after displaying linguistic difficulty might be
simple analysis of the quantity of L2 turns, the explained by what is referred to as collaborative
results do not support the prediction that there word search. Park (2007) showed that nonnative
would be more L2 communication during the FF and native speakers played the roles of “request-
activities than during the MF activities. or” (p. 343) and “requestee” (p. 343) through
Nonetheless, these findings are consistent with searching for words collaboratively. She argued
those of other empirical studies concerning the that this asymmetrical relationship of a requestor
limited use of the L2 in classroom settings and requestee through collaborative word search
(Canagarajah, 2001; Duff, 2004; Goldstein, led to successful communication because partic-
2003; Hall & Verplaetse, 2000; Heller, 2006; ipants knew how to perform their roles appropri-
Nakane, 2007; Pon et al., 2003; Storch & ately in a given interactional situation. In other
Hill, 2008). It has been suggested that the lack words, they “fashion[ed] themselves as different
of L2 utterances is probably not solely due to the ‘kinds of people”’ (Gee, Allen, & Clinton, 2001,
learners’ limited L2 knowledge (Duff, 2002). p. 175) using language appropriate for the
Rather, other factors may also hinder the use of assigned roles. In a similar way, our participants
the L2, including the fact that students already established their identities as language learners by
know each other through communicating in their asking questions before any successful communi-
first language and therefore feel unnatural or cation in English. Without publicly displaying
uncomfortable communicating in the L2 (Leger their identities as learners through asking ques-
& Storch, 2009). This brings to mind a difference tions, they often failed to get reactions from
between the participants in the pilot study and others or received negative reactions, which did
those in the main study. The pilot participants not lead to further communication in English.
were six Japanese ESL students who had just Different from Park, however, the questions that
arrived in Canada and started their ESL program our participants asked were not only about
at the time of the data collection. Therefore, they vocabulary but also about grammar. Thus, we
did not know each other very well when they call these interactions “collaborative grammar/
participated in the pilot study. Although we used word search,” where participants display grammar
the same materials with them as the main study, or vocabulary difficulty and discuss them as
the pilot participants completed all tasks in requestor or requestee.
English, which was dramatically different from In order to examine the relationship between
the participants in the main study.11 Although collaborative grammar/word search and FF/MF
there was very limited use of L2 English overall activities, we conducted a post-hoc analysis on the
among the participants in this study, a closer number of collaborative grammar/word search
examination of discursive practices revealed that episodes (GSE and WSE, respectively) during FF/
there were some situations where participants did MF activities (see Table 5). The results showed
communicate in English. that there were about four times as many GSEs
604 The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)
TABLE 5 136 Tami Groundwater.
Number of Collaborative Grammar/Word Search 137 Sato Waters are.
Episodes (GSEs and WSEs) 138 Tami Are? Groundwater is. Sorry, I am
not sure about this.
FF Activities MF Activities 139 Waka That’s okay.
140 Tami Because, because? They are all
GSEs WSEs GSEs WSEs
groundwater.
Group A 8 5 3 5
Group B 13 5 2 6
Total 21 10 5 11 As shown in Example 5, the participants
collaboratively constructed two sentences over
17 incomplete turns; “You should drink water in
Takano-City. Takano-City’s water is clean and
during FF activities than MF activities, while there good because they are all groundwater.” It
was an almost equal number of WSEs during both appears that the participants produced incom-
activities. The results may suggest that the plete turns in order to give others the floor and
participants had more opportunities during FF opportunities to complete the sentence.
activities than MF activities to display their Third, a close examination of discursive prac-
difficulty with grammar and establish their tices revealed there were many repetitions during
identities as language learners, which encouraged FF activities, especially when the participants
them to invest in L2 communication. produced incomplete turn-constructional units.
Second, it was also observed that the FF The participants often repeated a previous speak-
activities led to greater incomplete turn-construc- er’s utterance and expanded it by adding one or
tional units in relation to L2 communication. two new words, which was then followed by the
Introduced by Lerner (1995) and further exam- next speaker’s repetition and expansion. Such
ined by He (2003), incomplete turn-construction- incomplete turn-constructional units could be
al units are often used between teachers and referred to as a series of “expansions” in interac-
students, where teachers end their turn without tion research (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995). In
completing a sentence. By doing so, they invite addition to the interactional benefits of “expand-
students’ responses and assign “some authorship ing” or adding new information, the incomplete
to the students” (He, 2003, p. 132). In our study, turn-constructional units with repetitions appear
these incomplete turn-constructional units were to have social and affective benefits for the
frequently used among students, as shown in learners. Social and affective roles of repetitions
Examples 1 and 2 (i.e., FF Activities). When they during communication have been researched
produced these units, each turn usually consisted extensively from the perspective of second
of only one or a few English words. However, as a language socialization (e.g., Duff, 2000). These
collection of individual turns, they made a full studies suggest that repetitions create affective,
sentence. Below is another clear example of humorous, and supportive environments for
incomplete turn-constructional units produced interactions (e.g., Duff, 2000; Hall &
during the FF activity: Verplaetse, 2000), show engagement with the
conversation (e.g., Norrick, 1987), and display
enjoyment (e.g., Duff, 2000; Piirainen–Marsh &
EXAMPLE 5: FF Activity on Day 1 Tainio, 2009). Given these characteristics, repe-
titions are considered to provide both speakers
124 Waka You should.
125 Sato You. and hearers with more secure feelings and
126 Waka Should. promote further communication (see Duff,
127 Sato Drink. 2000). Thus, the frequent use of repetitions
128 Waka Drink… water? during incomplete turn-constructional units ap-
129 Sato Yep. pears to indicate the participants’ active engage-
130 Waka In Takano-City. ment with L2 communication. In fact, one of the
131 Sato Takano-City’s water is clean. participants, Aiko, told us during the interview
Although it is tasteless. that she would repeat frequently because repeti-
132 Waka Good? tion was the only way she could respond to others
133 Sato Yeah.
in English immediately and it would liven up the
134 Waka Takano-City’s water is clean.
135 Sato How do you say groundwater in conversational atmosphere.
English? In addition to the above verbal interactional
behaviours of collaborative grammar/vocabulary
Yasuyo Tomita and Nina Spada 605

search, incomplete turn-constructional units, and On the other hand, during MF activities,
repetitions, the results of discursive practices learners had limited access to linguistic resources,
during FF activities uncovered “go ahead” signs specifically grammar. Such limited access to
(Sato, 1981, p. 20) that gave the right to speech linguistic resources resulted in lack of identity
(Bourdieu, 1977) to other members. The results and interactional resources necessary for learn-
showed that there were a variety of interactional ers’ investment in L2 communication. That is,
resources during FF activities, such as frequent they did not have opportunities to establish their
eye contact, nodding, gestures, and smiles. It was identities as learners through asking and discus-
found that these interactional resources fostered sing grammar questions. Thus, as shown in the
their communication in English. Focusing on results, instead of getting encouragement to
communication behaviours in classroom dis- speak English, the participants experienced
course, Sato (1981) found that many Asian ESL negative reactions from others when they initiat-
students needed a “go ahead” sign (p. 20) before ed English communication during MF activities.
entering conversations because these signs, in- Such negative reactions have been reported in
cluding eye contact and nods, gave learners the several studies on language learners in multilin-
floor. Similarly, our participants utilized these “go gual classrooms (Goldstein, 1997, 2003; Lee,
ahead” signs (e.g., eye contact and nods) to invite 2001; Pon et al., 2003), as well as Japanese
others to participate in the conversation, by giving students’ use of English with their Japanese peers
them the floor. (Kanno, 2003; Ryan, 2009). The common phe-
Being granted with what Bourdieu (1977) nomenon among these studies is that, in speaking
refers to as the right to speech may be necessary L2 English, you run the risk of being considered a
for learners to become an animator or author show off by your L1 peers (Goldstein, 1997, 2003;
successfully. According to Bourdieu, everybody Kanno, 2003; Pon et al., 2003). For example,
has different degrees of right to speech. For Cantonese-speaking ESL students in Goldstein’s
example, some people are considered to be more (1997, 2003) studies claimed that speaking
worth listening to than others. In many studies on English to their Cantonese-speaking peers in class
L2 learning, those who have the right to speech was “rude” because speaking English would show
are often native speakers of a target language how “special” you were (Goldstein, 2003, p. 16).
(e.g., Norton, 2000). Since our study was con- Similarly, Kanno (2003) showed that one of her
ducted in an EFL classroom in Japan, it could be participants was negatively told by her Japanese
expected that those who are good at English peers that she was showing off when she uttered a
might have the right to speech in the EFL phrase in English unintentionally during a
classroom context. However, our data showed conversation. Due to the risk of getting such
that learners who publicly demonstrated difficulty negative reactions, some learners choose to
with English by asking questions about grammar “mask” their fluent use of English (Lee, 2001,
or vocabulary were often the most successful in p. 224).
gaining the right to speech in English; they This tendency to regard speaking English as
strategically used linguistic resources and asked showing off was evident among our participants.
grammar/vocabulary questions, while assigning Some even considered that speaking English was
themselves “requestor” roles and others “reques- different from knowing English grammar as
tee” roles (Park, 2007). Such publicly demonstrat- indicated in this comment:
ed identity roles appeared to give both speakers
and hearers the right to speech because they were Everybody can use grammar if they think hard and study
expected to play their roles properly by listening hard. If you know grammar well, I will just think “Oh, you
carefully to each other and conveying messages as are studying hard.” But if you have good pronunciation, I
requestors or requestees. will think you are very cool. (…) Being able to speak English
Therefore, learners had more opportunities to fluently and having good pronunciation can show how
display linguistic difficulty, specifically grammar, much you are familiar [with English and English culture.]
during FF activities. With such linguistic resour- (Mika, Interview, December 2008)
ces, learners had access to identity and interac-
tional resources necessary for successful According to the interview responses, grammati-
communication in L2. They were then able to cal knowledge of English indicates how hard the
publicly establish their identities as learners and person has studied the language, while fluency in
were encouraged to communicate in L2 with English can represent the speaker’s special
supportive verbal and non-verbal reactions from experiences and opportunities that not everyone
other members. has, such as living abroad and being surrounded
606 The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)

by the target language and culture. Thus, a communication sheds light on the role of
general consensus among our participants seems grammar in helping learners to invest in L2
to be that the former (i.e., grammatical knowl- communication. As Cole and Zuengler (2003)
edge) is equally available and possible for argue, language can be a symbol to represent
everybody, while the latter (i.e., fluent speech) social structures, as well as a tool to establish
is available and possible only for a privileged few. “social and psychological realities” in learners’
As Ryan (2009) states, Japanese students often language socialization processes (p. 99). The
admire fluent L2 English speakers because of the results of this study support the role of language,
“social prestige that comes with this ability” specifically the role of grammar, in helping the
(Ryan, 2009, p. 416). As a result, speaking English language socialization process of L2 learners.
in front of peers can be seen as showing off and That is, the participants used grammar as a symbol
tends to trigger negative reactions from peers. to represent asymmetrical power relations be-
To summarize, the participants experienced tween English speakers and English learners. The
negative reactions toward their use of English results indicate that asymmetrical power relations
during MF activities. However, the fact that the positively enhanced L2 communication when
same participants did speak in English without learners publicly displayed their identity as
experiencing such negative reactions during FF English learners by demonstrating their difficulty
activities seems to confirm that a focus on and struggles with grammar. In other words,
language form played an important role in the learners used grammar as a tool to establish their
type of L2 learner communication. That is, desired identities as English learners and to be
grammar, a type of linguistic resource, helped publicly accepted as learners. This allowed them
them to perform as language learners with proper to have access to identity and interactional
identities and interactional resources, necessary resources that encouraged them to further invest
for L2 communication. As shown in Figure 2, in L2 communication. Although our data suggest
discussions about grammar problems during FF that presenting oneself as an English learner was
activities seemed to give the participants a sense of welcome and that displaying oneself as an English
solidarity as learners, which encouraged them to speaker was rejected among our participants, it is
invest in L2 communication with verbal and non- important to keep in mind that acceptable
verbal support from others. During MF activities, identities are different in different situations
on the other hand, learners rarely had the and at different times and that appropriate
opportunity to establish their identities as learn- participation also varies depending on time and
ers due to the lack of linguistic resources available place (Cole & Zuengler, 2003; Duff, 2007;
for them. Watson–Gegeo & Nielsen, 2003).
This study supports the claim that cognitive,
social, and affective factors of L2 learning
CONCLUSION complement each other (Watson–Gegeo &
Nielsen, 2003). As the results suggest, one of
The previous discussion on the amount of L2
the reasons for the positive effects of FFI on L2
communication and learner investment in L2
learning was that it encouraged learners to
further invest in L2 communication, providing
them with useful linguistic, identity, and interac-
FIGURE 2
tional resources for L2 learning. These results
Linguistic, Identity, and Interactional Resources
during FF Activities
complement the findings of cognitively oriented
interaction-based SLA studies. That is, as a result
of learner investment in L2 communication
during FF activities, learners had opportunities,
for example, to notice the gap, to raise their
awareness about their own and others’ utterances,
to receive corrective feedback, and to modify their
utterances. Without investment in communica-
tion, these opportunities would not be available
for or accepted by learners.
As with all research undertakings, there are
limitations to this study. Because the study is
hybrid in nature, with both cognitive and social
perspectives, it does not wholly represent one
Yasuyo Tomita and Nina Spada 607
3
perspective or the other. For example, this study The names of teachers, students, school, city where
did not have a pretest–posttest design or a control the data were collected, and mountain in the city are all
group, which are important elements in cogni- pseudonyms to protect the participants’ anonymity.
4
tively based research in order to examine whether One of the participants, Junko, substituted for one
of the focal participants, Hana, and joined her group on
or not learning has occurred. Coming from the
Day 3 because Hana was absent from school on that day.
other side, as it were, in this research we did not Thus, the total number of the focal students was 11,
shadow any of the participants wherever they were including her.
at school or outside of school over a long period of 5
Several researchers have indicated that it is desirable
time, which is essential for socially oriented to conduct stimulated recalls immediately after the
ethnographic studies that have examined learner event in order to obtain the most accurate data possible
investment. (Ericsson & Simon, 1993; Gass & Mackey, 2000).
Even so, this study provides intriguing evidence Unfortunately, it was impossible to transfer the data to
that EFL learners at a Japanese high school a computer, review two 40-minutes videos, and select
communicated in English after establishing their segments for recalls in such a short time in order to
conduct the stimulated recall sessions immediately after
identities as English learners through displaying
the treatment. Furthermore, after the instructional
grammar difficulty and discussing grammar treatment lesson, students had only a 10-minute break
questions. Thus, the results suggest that FF and were required to attend other classes until early
activities can help learners to invest in L2 evening. Thus, the stimulated recalls were conducted
communication, which may in turn lead to after school but on the same day as the treatment lesson.
6
further L2 learning. They also provide support Although each interview was scheduled for 20
for the claim that social and cognitive processes minutes, most students appeared to be more eager to
complement each other in fostering L2 learning. respond to the questions after the first author finished
For now they are specific to the EFL learners at interviewing them, thanked them for coming to the
interview, and closed her files. Most of them talked for
this high school in Japan. It is hoped that future
more than 10 or 15 additional minutes and some went
studies will examine L2 learning from social and
on more than one hour.
cognitive perspectives to better understand learn- 7
In presenting the interactional data, we follow Ten
ers, the learning processes, and the learning Have’s (2007) conversation analysis transcription con-
situations, particularly when studies examine a ventions (see Appendix). Utterances in italics represent
larger number of participants from a variety of L1 speech produced in Japanese.
8
backgrounds, ages, and learning contexts. Such The number next to the participants’ names
research will contribute in important ways to the represents the number of the turn in the entire
provision of better second language education. exchange during the FF activity on Day 1.
9
All of the interviews, stimulated recalls, and follow-
up interviews were conducted in Japanese. The first
author transcribed them and translated them into
English.
10
NOTES Due to the angle of the camera, we could only see
Sato and Nao’s faces during the interactions in this
1 example.
To account for possible attrition with the focal 11
While one might argue that the contextual differ-
participants due to opportunities to join a study abroad ences (i.e., ESL in the pilot study versus EFL in the main
program or to transfer to a different program, the first
study) played a role in the participants’ language use,
author selected the first 14 students who submitted their
this is not necessarily the case given that learners’
consent forms as candidates for the focal participants limited use of the target language has been reported in
hoping that at least ten of them would complete all of
both ESL (e.g., Duff 2002; Pon et al., 2003) and EFL
the data collection tasks. During the first interviews with settings (e.g., Canagarajah, 2001; Nakane, 2007).
the 14 participants, 3 participants expressed their plans
to register in a study abroad program the following year,
which meant that they might not be able to complete the
data collection tasks in the later stages of the study. REFERENCES
Thus, from the remaining 11 participants, the first
author randomly selected 10 as focal students. There Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language
were a few male students in the same class, but they did acquisition. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University
not submit their parent consent forms. Thus, they were Press.
not included as participants. Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic
2
The assignment of the focal students to groups was exchange. Social Science Information, 16, 645–668.
random except for 2 participants who had lived in Byrd Clark, J. (2008). Journeys of integration in Canada’s
English-speaking countries. One was assigned to each pluralistic society: Italian Canadian youth and the
group. symbolic investments in French as official language.
608 The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ontario Goodwin, C. (1987). Forgetfulness as an interactive
Institute for Studies in Education of the University resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 115–131.
of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Greer, D. L. (2000). “The eyes of hito”: A Japanese
Canagarajah, A. S. (2001). Constructing hybrid postco- cultural monitor of behavior in the communica-
lonial subjects: Codeswitching in Jaffna class- tive language classroom. JALT Journal, 22, 183–
rooms. In M. Heller & M. Martin–Jones (Eds.), 195.
Voices of authority: Education and linguistic difference Hall, J. K., & Verplaetse, L. S. (2000). The development
(pp. 193–212). Westport, CT: Ablex. of second and foreign language learning through
Cole, K., & Zuengler, J. (2003). Engaging in an classroom interaction. In J. K. Hall & L. S.
authentic science project: Appropriating, resist- Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language
ing, and denying “scientific” identities. In R. learning through classroom interaction (pp. 1–20).
Bayley & S. Schecter (Eds.), Language socialization Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
in bilingual and multilingual societies (pp. 98–113). He, A. W. (2003). Novices and their speech roles in
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Chinese heritage language classes. In R. Bayley &
Duff, P. (2000). Repetition in foreign language class- S. R. Schecter (Eds.), Language socialization in
room interaction. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse bilingual and multilingual societies (pp. 128–146).
(Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
classroom interaction (pp. 109–138). Mahwah, NJ: Heller, M. (2006). Linguistic minorities and modernity. New
Lawrence Erlbaum. York: Continuum.
Duff, P. (2001). Language, literacy, content, and (pop) Imai, Y. (2007). Collaborative learning for an EFL classroom:
culture: Challenges for ESL students in main- Emotions, language, and communication. (Unpub-
stream courses. Canadian Modern Language Review, lished doctoral dissertation). The Ontario Insti-
59, 103–132. tute for Studies in Education of the University of
Duff, P. (2002). The discursive co-construction of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
knowledge, identity, and difference: An ethnogra- Ito, H (Ed.). (2008). Autoputto juushi no eigo jugyou,
phy of communication in the high school [Output-focused English lessons]. Tokyo: Kyouiku
mainstream. Applied Linguistics, 23, 289–322. Shuppan.
Duff, P. (2004). Intertextuality and hybrid discourses: Kanno, Y. (2003). Negotiating bilingual and bicultural
The infusion of pop culture in educational identities: Japanese returnees betwixt two worlds.
discourse. Linguistics and Education, 14, 231–276. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Duff, P. (2007). Second language socialization as Kim, J. (2008). Negotiating multiple investments in
sociocultural theory: Insights and issues. Language languages and identities: The language socialization
Teaching, 40, 309–319. of generation 1.5 Korean–Canadian university stu-
Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner dents. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Uni-
perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as versity of British Columbia, Vancouver, British
language awareness. Modern Language Journal, 94, Columbia, Canada.
1–21. Kusano Hubbell, K. (2002). Zen and the art of English
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. language teaching. In S. Savignon (Ed.), Interpret-
Oxford: Oxford University Press. ing communicative language teaching: Contexts and
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: concerns in teacher education (pp. 82–87). New
Verbal reports as data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Haven, CT/London: Yale University Press.
MIT Press. Lee, S. K. (2001). English language and the construction of
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communi- the sociocultural identities of ESL speakers. (Unpub-
cation, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA lished doctoral dissertation). University of Hous-
research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285–300. ton, Houston, TX.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1998). SLA property: No Leger, D., & Storch, N. (2009). Learners’ perceptions
trespassing. Modern Language Journal, 82, 91–94. and attitudes: Implications for willingness to
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall communicate in an L2 classroom. System, 37,
methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: 269–285.
Lawrence Erlbaum. Lerner, G. H. (1995). Turn design and the organization
Gee, J. P., Allen, A.– R., & Clinton, K. (2001). Language, of participation in instructional activities. Discourse
class, and identity: Teenagers fashioning them- Processes, 19, 111–131.
selves through language. Linguistics and Education, Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in
12, 175–194. SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–
Goldstein, T. (1997). Bilingual life in a multilingual high 365.
school classroom: Teaching and learning in Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom
Cantonese and English. Canadian Modern Lan- SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language
guage Review, 53, 356–372. Acquisition, 32, 265–302.
Goldstein, T. (2003). Teaching and learning in a Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2008). Interaction research in
multilingual school. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A.
Erlbaum. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second
Yasuyo Tomita and Nina Spada 609
language acquisition: A series of empirical studies Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on
(pp. 407–452). Oxford: Oxford University Press. language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164).
Matsumura, M. (2009). Eigo kyouikuwo shiru 58 no kagi, Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[58 key points to understand English education] Ryan, S. (2009). Ambivalence and commitment, libera-
Tokyo: Taishukan. tion and challenge: investigating the attitudes of
McKay, S. L., & Wong, S. C. (1996). Multiple discourses, young Japanese people towards the learning of
multiple identities: Investment and agency in English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
second language learning among Chinese adoles- Development, 30, 405–420.
cent immigrant students. Harvard Educational Sato, C. (1981). Ethnic styles in classroom discourse. In
Review, 3, 577–608. M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.), On TESOL ’81
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and (pp. 11–24). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Technology (MEXT). (2003). Regarding the Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.),
establishment of an action plan to cultivate Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32).
“Japanese with English Abilities.” Retrieved Sep- Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
tember 19, 2010, from http://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/ Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second
info:ndljp/pid/286794/www.mext.go.jp/english/ language acquisition: A review of classroom
topics/03072801.htm. and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30,
Nakane, I. (2007). Silence in intercultural communication. 73–87.
Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Spada, N. (2011). Beyond form-focused instruction:
Norrick, N. R. (1987). Functions of repetition in Reflections on past, present and future research.
conversation. Text, 7, 245–264. Language Teaching, 44, 225–236.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 Spada, N., & Fröhlich, M. (1995). The Communicative
instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative Orientation of Language Teaching (COLT) observation
meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528. scheme: Coding conventions and applications. Sydney,
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, Australia: Macquarie University, National Center
ethnicity and educational change. Harlow, UK: for English Language Teaching and Research.
Pearson Education. Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between
Norton Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, type of instruction and type of language feature:
and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 9–31. A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263–
Ochs, E. (1986). Introduction. In B. B. Schieffelin & E. 308.
Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning.
(pp. 1–13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Press. Storch, N., & Hill, K. (2008). What happens to
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1984). Language international students’ English after one semester
acquisition and socialization: Three developmen- at university? Australian Review of Applied Linguis-
tal stories. In R. A. Shweder & R. A. LeVine (Eds.), tics, 31, 4.1–4.17.
Culture theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion (pp. Suzuki, J ((2010), August). Eigoryokuteika no gennin to
276–320). Cambridge: Cambridge University taisaku: Gutaiteki jirei to jisshou deta wo fumaete
Press. [Reasons for the decrease in English proficiency
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2008). Language and solutions for it: Empirical data]. In H.
socialization: An historical overview. In P. Duff & Yokokawa (Chair), Chukodai no eigoryoku no teika
N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language wo dou sapoto suruka: Ima motomerareru eigoryoku
and education. Vol. 8: Language socialization (pp. 3– towa?, [How to stop the decrease in English
15). Boston: Springer. proficiency among junior high school, senior
Park, J. E. (2007). Co-construction of nonnative speaker high school, and university students: What kind of
identity in cross-cultural interaction. Applied Lin- English ability is essential?]. Symposium con-
guistics, 28, 339–360. ducted at the meeting of the 36th annual meeting
Piirainen–Marsh, A., & Tainio, L. (2009). Other- of the Japan Society of English Language Educa-
repetition as a resource for participation in the tion Kansai University, Osaka, Japan.
activity of playing a video game. Modern Language Takahashi, T. (2000). Eigo kyouikugaku gairon [English
Journal, 93, 153–169. education]. Tokyo: Kinseido.
Pon, G., Goldstein, T., & Schecter, S. R. (2003). Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A
Interrupted by silences: The contemporary edu- practical guide, (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
cation of Hong Kong-born Chinese Canadians. In Watson–Gegeo, K. (2004). Mind, language, and episte-
R. Bayley & S. R. Schecter (Eds.). Language mology: Toward a language socialization para-
socialization in bilingual and multilingual societies digm for SLA. Modern Language Journal, 88, 331–
(pp. 114–127). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual 350.
Matters. Watson–Gegeo, K., & Nielsen, S. (2003). Language
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of socialization in SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long
corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition
grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. (pp. 155–177). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
610 The Modern Language Journal 97 (2013)
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a Zuengler, J., & Cole, K. (2005). Language socialization
second language: The Japanese EFL context. and L2 learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of
Modern Language Journal, 86, 54–66. research in second language teaching and learning (pp.
Young, R. F. (2008). Language and interaction: An 301–316). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
advanced resource book. New York/London: Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. (2006). Cognitive and
Routledge. sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA
Young, R. F. (2009). Discursive practice in language learning worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40, 31–58.
and teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.

APPENDIX

Transcription Conventions Adapted from Ten

Have (2007, pp. 215–216) and Young (2008)

[ The onset of overlapping

] The end of overlapping
¼ Latching or no gap between two turns
(.) A tiny time interval within a turn or between turns.
Word A stressed part
:: Prolongation
– A cut-off
? Rising intonation
. A falling tone
, A low-rising intonation
WORD Especially loud sounds
˚ Quieter sounds
<> Speeding up
() Inability to hear what was said
(word) Dubious hearings
((smiles)) Description of nonverbal action
Italics Utterances originally uttered in Japanese and translated into English by the author