A S0C10CULTURAL STUDY OF SECOND LANGUAGE TASKS

ACTIVITY, AGENCY, AND LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION

by

MASAKI KOBAYASHI

B.A., Dokkyo University, 1993

M.A., Monterey Institute of International Studies, 1997

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

in

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

Language and Literacy Education

We accept this thesis as conforming

tothe required standard

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

September 2004

©Masaki Kobayashi, 2004

 Abstract

In recent years, an increasing number of second language (L2) researchers have

employed the concept of task as a unit of analysis (e.g., Crookes & Gass, 1993a, 1993b;

Ellis, 2003; Skehan, 1998). However, most studies to date have focused primarily on L2

students doing narrowly defined tasks in classrooms or laboratory settings. How do L2

students work together in and out of class time and over an extended period of time to

undertake their in-class academic tasks? How do they benefit from their previous

experiences when performing related and similar activities? Informed by sociocultural

perspectives (e.g., Duff, 2003; Lantolf, 2000; Ochs, 1988; Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch,

1991), the present multiple-case study examined ESL students' group project work as a

means to their becoming more fully competent knowers and speakers about academic

content/culture. More specifically, the study examined ESL students' academic discourse

socialization through their undertaking of oral presentation tasks.

Participants included 80 Japanese undergraduate students enrolled in a two-

semester content course at a Canadian university. Data were collected through classroom

and non-classroom observations of project work, in-depth, semi-structured interviews,

audio-journals kept by key students, and audio- and video-recordings of their

interactions. Eleven key students and their partners were observed as they participated in

a variety of activities both inside and outside the classroom. Recorded interactions were

analyzed using mainly the analytical tools of the ethnography of communication and

linked with themes that emerged from the other data.

Data analysis suggested that the instructor, together with her assistant, provided

her students with various kinds of help for their undertaking of tasks. In particular, she

ii
organized the course in such a way that earlier tasks and projects would serve as scaffolds

for the students' participation in subsequent ones. The analysis also indicated that

students' task-preparatory activities as well as actual task performances were rich

contexts for learning and socialization. Many groups prepared for their presentations by

negotiating teacher expectations, task definitions and goals, roles and identities, the

language and content of their presentations, and rehearsing their speeches. The analysis

suggested that these collaborative sessions, conducted primarily in Japanese, seem to

have allowed the students to move their detailed discussion forward with less frustration,

maintain group harmony and pursuit of goals, and attend to the form and delivery of their

speech. The analysis further suggested that in order to undertake their tasks, students

often acted upon their cognitive uptake from previous events, and such continued

engagement sometimes took place rather privately as inner dialogues (Volosinov, 1973)

or in the absence of the researcher. These findings point to the need to take a behind-the-

scenes look at contingency across tasks and contexts by using a variety of methods,

including a detailed analysis of discourse, interviews, and journal entries that would

together allow for a consideration of both etic and emic perspectives.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ii

Table of Contents iv

List of Tables x

List of Figures xi

Acknowledgements xii

Dedication xvi

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background 1
1.2 The Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 2
1.3 The Statement of the Problem 3
1.4 The Significance of the Study 5
1.5 Previous Approaches to Task-Based Research 7
1.6 Defining Key Terms 11
1.6.1 Task and Activity 11
1.6.2 Task Preparation 12
1.6.3 Performance 13
1.6.4 Project Work 15
1.6.5 Academic Tasks 17
1.7 Overview of the Dissertation 18

Chapter 2 SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES ON TASK-BASED L2 RESEARCH:

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 20

2.0 Sociocultural Perspectives 20

2.1 Vygotskian Sociocultural and Activity Theory 21
2.1.1 Sociocultural Origins of Individual Mental Functioning 21
2.1.2 Learning in the Zone of Proximal Development 23
2.1.3 Private Speech as a Link Between Social and Inner Speech 24
2.1.4 ZPD, Scaffolding, and Beyond 25
2.1.5 Activity Theory 28
2.1.6 Bakhtin's Contributions to the Vygotskian Sociocultural
Theory 30
2.2 Language Socialization Theory 33
2.2.1 Principles of Language Socialization and Early LI Research ... 33
2.2.2 Language Socialization beyond Early Childhood and across
Languages and Cultures 38

iv
 2.3 Hallidayan Social-Semiotic Theory 40
2.4 Situated Learning Theory 43
2.5 Human Agency in Sociocultural Theories 45
2.6 Task-Based L2 Studies Informed by Sociocultural Theories 50
2.6.1 Peer Collaboration 50
2.6.2 The Role of LI in L2 Learning 52
2.6.3 Activity Theory and L2 Tasks 55
2.6.4 Academic Tasks and L2 Discourse Socialization 59
2.6.5 L2 Project Work 64
2.7 Rogoff s Three-Plane Analysis of Sociocultural Activity 65
2.8 Summary of the Chapter 68

Chapter 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 70

3.0 Introduction 70
3.1 An Ethnographic Case Study Approach 71
3.2 Research Site and Context 74
3.2.1 The University Preparation Program at ELI 76
3.2.2 The Content Course at WPU 78
3.3 Key Participants' Profiles 80
3.3.1 Key Teachers 81
3.3.2 Key Students 84
3.3.2.1 Student Residences 84
3.3.2.2 Students' Profiles 86
3.3.3 The Researcher and the Researched: Joint Participants 90
3.4 Data Collection 95
3.4.1 Observations 95
3.4.2 Interviews and Conversations with Students 98
3.4.3 Interviews and Conversations with Teachers 101
3.4.4 Audio-Journals by Key Students 101
3.4.5 E-mail Interviews with Students 102
3.4.6 Collection of Relevant Documents 103
3.5 Data Analysis 104
3.5.1. Data Analysis Procedure 104
3.5.2 Ethnography of Communication 106
3.5.3 Analysis of Contingency and Intertextuality 107
3.6 Trustworthiness of the Study 109
3.7 Ethical Considerations 114
3.8 Summary of the Chapter 115

Chapter 4 COMMUNITY CONTEXT OF TASKS 117

4.0 Introduction 117

4.1 The WPU-Keishin Joint Program 117
4.2 Classroom Culture of the Language Fieldwork Course 118
4.2.1 Course Objectives 118

v
 4.2.1.1 Learning Academic Content and Discourse 121
4.2.1.2 Developing Critical Thinking Skills 122
4.2.1.3 Developing Problem-Solving Skills 124
4.2.1.4 Developing Cooperative Skills 125
4.2.1.5 Developing Academic Interests 126
4.2.2 Other Values Fostered in the Classroom Community 127
4.2.2.1 Learning through Observation and Emulation of the
Model 127
4.2.2.2 The Teacher as an "ESL Person" 130
4.2.2.3 LI as a Tool for Student Learning 131
4.2.3 Major Classroom Activities 134
4.2.3.1 Teacher Lectures 134
4.2.3.2 Small Group Discussions 137
4.2.4 Course Assignments as Tasks 138
4.2.4.1 Semester 1 Tasks 139
4.2.4.2 Semester 2 Tasks 141
4.2.5 Roles of the Teachers as Socializing Agents 143
4.2.5.1 Explicit Explanation of the Task 143
4.2.5.2 The Instructor's Explanation about and Modeling of the
Journal Writing Task 146
4.2.5.3 TA's Modeling of the Oral Presentation Task 147
4.2.5.3.1 Explaining the Value of the Task 148
4.2.5.3.2 Explaining Choice of Presentation Topic ... 149
4.2.5.3.3 Discussing the Gap in the Literature 149
4.2.5.3.4 Reporting Other Voices 151
4.2.5.3.5 Interaction with the Audience 153
4.2.5.3.6 Helping Students Get Started 154
4.2.5.4 Progress Report 155
4.3 Summary of the Chapter 160

Chapter 5 STUDENT AGENCY AND COLLABORATION IN L2 TASK

PREPARATION 163

5.0 Introduction 163

5.1 Kiku and Nana's Task Preparation 163
5.1.1 Getting Started 164
5.1.1.1 Negotiating Task Definitions and Requirements 164
5.1.1.2 Choosing Partners 171
5.1.2 Kiku, Nana, and Shingo's Group Preparation for the Task 172
5.1.2.1 Negotiating Task Definition and Teacher Expectations . 172
5.1.2.2 Sharing Experience and Negotiating Content 175
5.1.2.3 Collaborative Dialogue in Making
a PowerPoint Document 178
5.1.2.3.1 Negotiating L2 Form 178
5.1.2.3.2 Negotiating L2 Lexical Choices 180
5.1.2.3.3 Negotiating Rhetoric 182

vi
 5.1.2.4 Rehearsing and Performance-Coaching 184
5.2 Tomo and Koyuki's Group Preparation for the Task 187
5.2.1 Negotiating Task Definition and Teacher Expectations 190
5.2.1.1 Collaborative Dialogue in Making a PowerPoint
Document 191
5.2.1.2 Collaborative Dialogue in Formulating Utterances 193
5.2.1.3 Rehearsing 197
5.2.2 Development of a Text through Peer Collaboration and
Repeated Engagement 199
5.2.2.1 Rehearsing and "Noticing the Hole" in the Presentation
Program 201
5.2.2.2 Negotiating Language and Content (formulating) 202
5.2.2.2.1 Collaborative Dialogues Going in a Desired
Direction 203
5.2.2.2.2 Collaborative Dialogues Going in an
Undesired Direction 207
5.2.2.2.3 Joint Construction of Utterances 209
5.2.2.2.4 Collaborative Dialogue Not Reaching a
Consensus 211
5.2.2.3 Koyuki's Repeated Engagement with Her Cognitive
Uptake 213
5.3 Alternate Forms of Agency 215
5.4 Summary of the Chapter 218

Chapter 6 STUDENTS' PERFORMANCE OF ORAL PRESENTATIONS 222

6.0 Introduction 222

6.1 Characteristics of the Student Presentations 222
6.2 Ideational Reflection 225
6.2.1 Explaining the Rationale for the Study 225
6.2.2 Displaying Newly Gained Information and Knowledge 227
6.2.3 Reporting Participants' Voices 230
6.2.4 Connecting Theory and Practice 231
6.3 Students' Efforts to Self-Regulate Their Performance 232
6.3.1 Use of Notes 232
6.3.2 Self-Repetition 233
6.3.2.1 Repeating to Self-Correct 234
6.3.2.2 Repeating to Remember 235
6.3.3 Use of Private Speech 236
6.4 Peer Collaboration in the Task Performance 238
6.4.1 Transitions between Speakers 238
6.4.2 Use of LI Backstage Talk 240
6.4.3 Joint Production of Utterances 242
6.5 Interpersonal Actions and Strategies to Involve the Audience 243
6.5.1 Using Small Talk 243
6.5.2 Employing Questions Directed Toward the Audience 245

vii
 6.5.3 Repeating to Emphasize 248
6.5.4 Role-Playing and Demonstration 250
6.5.5 Story-Reading 253
6.6 Managing Presentation Discourse 254
6.6.1 Outlining the Presentation 255
6.6.2 Defining the Scope of the Presentation 257
6.6.3 Referring to Previous Parts 258
6.6.4 Referring to Previous Presentations and Events 258
6.7 Audience Contributions to the Task Performance 262
6.7.1 Teacher Contributions 262
6.7.1.1 Negotiating Meaning 263
6.7.1.2 Providing Appropriate Language 264
6.7.1.3 Providing Additional Information and Explanation 266
6.7.1.4 Adding Humor 269
6.7.1.5 Re-explaining the Purpose of the Task 270
6.7.2 Students' Contributions to the Task Performance 271
6.8 Summary of the Chapter 274

Chapter 7 STUDENTS' LEARNING ACROSS TASKS AND CONTEXTS 277

7.0 Introduction 277

7.1 Tomo's Learning across Tasks 279
7.1.1 ELI Presentation 279
7.1.2 Poster Project 280
7.1.3 Semester 1 Presentation 280
7.2 Nana's Learning across Tasks and Contexts 283
7.2.1 ELI Presentation 283
7.2.2 Semesters 1 and 2 Presentations 284
7.2.2.1 Becoming a Group Leader 285
7.2.2.2 Becoming a Critical Language User 286
7.3 Kiku's Learning Across Tasks and Contexts 288
7.3.1 ELI Presentation 288
7.3.2 Poster Project 290
7.3.3 Semester 1 Presentation 291
7.3.4 Semester 2 Presentation 293
7.3.4.1 Organizing Discourse 293
7.3.4.2 Learning to Improvise 293
7.3.4.3 Learning to Comment Like a Teacher 294
7.3.5 Model Presentation 296
7.4 Otome's Learning across Tasks and Contexts 298
7.4.1 Poster Presentation 298
7.4.2 Semester 1 Presentation 300
7.4.2.1 Otome's Apprehension 301
7.4.2.2 Connecting Theory and Practice 302
7.4.3 Semester 2 Presentation 304
7.5 Summary of the Chapter 309

viii
Chapter 8 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 311

8.0 Introduction 311

8.1 Summary and Discussion of Major Findings 312
8.1.1 Teachers as Organizers of the Task Environment 312
8.1.2 Features of a Valued Oral Presentation 314
8.1.3 Student Agency and Collaboration in Task Preparation and
Performance 315
8.1.4 Student Appropriation and Transformation 321
8.2 Major Theoretical Contributions 324
8.3 Implications for Pedagogy 327
8.4 Directions for Future Research 332
8.5 Final Remarks 335

References 336

Appendix A Informed Consent Form for Teachers 395

Appendix B Letter of Initial Contact 398

Appendix C Informed Consent Form for Students 399

Appendix D Key Students' Profiles 402

Appendix E Student Interview Guide 413

Appendix F Teacher Interview Guide 416

Appendix G Questions for Key Student Audio-Journals 418

Appendix H Transcription Conventions 419

Appendix I Task Description 1 421

Appendix J Task Description 2 422

Appendix K Poster Project Questionnaire 423

Appendix L Schedule for Academic Year 2000-2001 424

Appendix M Sample Writing 425

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Students' Fields of Studies (Academic Year 2000-2001) 75

Table 3.2 Key Students' Profiles 87

Table 4.1 Volunteer Placement 141

Table 4.2 Reported Speech and Quoted Speech 152

Table 4.3 Reported Thought and "Quoted" Thought 153

Table 5.1 Koyuki's Repeated Engagement with the Language 213

Table 6.1 Central Tendency of Actual Task Duration (minutes) , 223

Table 6.2 Shinpei's Notes 233

Table 6.3 Irregular Verbs 238

Table 6.4 Transitions between Speakers 240

Table 7.1 Comparison of Tomo's Writings 282

Table 7.2 Kiku's Use of Appreciation Resources 295

Table 7.3 Comparison of Written and Spoken Utterances 305

Table 8.1 Features of a "Good" Oral Presentation 314

x
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Rogoff s Three-Plane Analysis of Activity 67

Figure 3.1 Triangulation 112

Figure 3.2 Recursive Cycle of Data Collection and Analysis 116

xi
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The many phases and activities involved in the development of this dissertation

could not have succeeded without the valuable assistance and support of numerous

individuals whom I was fortunate to meet. First and foremost, I am indebted to the many

teachers and students without whose cooperation and dedication this study would have

been impossible. I am particularly grateful to my key participants, Ichiro Hakamada,

Kikujiro Oto, Koyuki Aasakura, Nana Kitamura, Otome Saotome, Rei Takagi, Ringo

Kanda, Sakura, Shinpei Kusano, Tomotaka Kaneshiro, Yoshino Fujiwara, Abraham

Simons, and Dr. Izzat Mukkammal (all pseudonyms) for welcoming me as a researcher

into their lives.

I would like to express my profound gratitude to my dissertation committee

members. My greatest debt of thanks goes to my research supervisor, Dr. Patricia Duff.

No one has been more involved in the whole process than she has. As a major mentor,

she has provided me with a great deal of assistance, guidance, and encouragement

throughout my entire studies at the University of British Columbia (UBC). Moreover, Dr.

Duff has always been a great source of inspiration. In fact, it was her work on task-based

L2 learning that led me to pursue my doctoral studies at UBC, and it was her deep

insights about classroom discourse, language socialization, and research methodologies

that have most helped me throughout this and many other studies. It has been a great

privilege for me to learn from her. I would also like to thank my committee members Drs.

Margaret Early and Bernard Mohan for their interest in this project as well as for their

insights and encouragement. Interacting with each of them on numerous occasions

greatly helped formulate the research questions and shape the present study. However, I

xii
alone am responsible for any inaccuracies or omissions. I also wish to thank my

university examiners, Drs. Lee Gunderson and Pierre Walter, and my external examiner,

Dr. James Lantolf, for the thoughtful questions and suggestions they offered. Dr. Lantolf

flew all the way from Pennsylvania to Vancouver to attend my oral examination, for

which I am very grateful.

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to Trish Fodor, Joe Greenholtz, Naru

Kida, Sherri Wenman, Bill McMichael, Eleanor Kenny, Joy Lin Salzberg, Jeremie Seror,

Zafar Syed, and Michael Weiss for their assistance and support. I would also like to

express my appreciation and thanks to Drs. Mary Bryson and Deborah Butler for their

critical insights on sociocultural research. Their seminars on research methodologies have

helped me develop a better appreciation of the complexity of conducting qualitative

research. In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Lee Gunderson, as department head, and

Mitsunori Takakuwa for making my relocation in Vancouver easier and Anne Eastham

for always welcoming me into her office with her warm smile. I am also grateful to Dr.

Jim Anderson for his support and encouragement.

I would like to thank my colleagues at UBC for their friendship and support. My

deepest appreciation goes to Dr. Gulbahar Beckett for her constant support throughout

the study. She was always encouraging and willing to provide much needed advice and

assistance. I would also like to thank Tammy Slater for reading the entire draft, providing

me with constructive comments, and organizing and participating in a number of helpful

events, including study group meetings and defense rehearsals. I am grateful to Yayoi

Shinbo for helping me segment Japanese words and to Naoko Morita for having always

xiii
been a great peer model for me, and Sandra Zappa-Hollman and Martin Guardado for

ongoing discussions about language socialization research.

Support and encouragement also came from outside the university. A special

word of thanks goes to Drs. Pauline Foster, John Hedgcock, and Deborah Poole for their

constructive comments on parts of this dissertation. Drs. Dwight Atkinson, Pauline

Foster, Peter Robinson, and Leo van Lier kindly shared their valuable work with me, for

which I am very grateful. I also benefited from my conversations with many scholars. I

am particularly grateful to Drs. Timothy Murphey, Elizabeth Piatt, and Haruko Cook for

their helpful comments and advice. I also thank Yasuhiro Imai, Shunji Inagaki, Aya

Matsuda, and Paul Matsuda for their encouragement and friendship.

I would like to thank my former professors at the Monterey Institute of

International Studies (MIIS), Drs. Kathleen Bailey, Lynn Goldstein, John Hedgcock,

Marysia Johnson, Peter Shaw, Michaele Smith, Nobuko Sugamoto, Jean Turner, and Leo

van Lier for teaching me a great deal about the theory, research, and practice of L2

learning and teaching and for supporting my decision to pursue doctoral studies. Their

initial confidence in my ability has always been a great encouragement, and their

influence on me has remained with me. I would also like to thank my colleagues at MIIS,

Rebecca Chase, Leigh Schleicher, Linnea Carlson, Pornpimon Supakorn, and Mari Toki

for their friendship and support.

Different stages of this study were supported by a Government of Canada Award

(GCA) from the International Academic Relations Division of the Department of Foreign

Affairs and International Trade Canada, by a graduate fellowship from the Faculty of

Graduate Studies, and by research grants from the Faculty of Education of UBC and the

xiv
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. I am grateful to these

organizations for their generous support, and to the International Council for Canadian

Studies for administering the GCA program. I would also like to thank the American

Association for Applied Linguistics and Teachers of English to Speakers of Other

Languages, the BCTEAL Charitable Foundation, and the Faculty of Education of UBC

for their financial support, which allowed me to present different parts of this dissertation

at several international conferences and to receive many helpful comments.

For their unstinting love and support over the years, I would like to express my

deepest appreciation to my family members, Matsuo Kobayashi, Hiroko Kobayashi,

Masao Sekiguchi, Yoshie Sekiguchi, Takashi Sekiguchi, Fumiyo Sekiguchi, Takuya

Sekiguchi, Tatsunori Oe, and Miyuki Oe. Finally, I thank my spouse and long-time

colleague Emi Kobayashi for having accompanied me and shared so many experiences

and feelings along this and many other journeys.

xv
To Emi

xvi
 Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The present study examined undergraduate ESL students' language socialization

1

through group project work during their year-long academic studies in a content-based

ESL program at a Canadian university. The focus is their oral tasks. The concept of task

has recently gained popularity both as a fundamental building block in second language

(L2) curriculum and syllabus design (Candlin & Murphy, 1987; Crookes & Gass, 1993b;

Long & Crookes, 1992; Mohan, 1990; Nunan, 1989; see also Swales, 1990) and as the

unit of analysis in studies of L2 development and interaction (Crookes & Gass, 1993a).

This is evident from the growing body of literature on task-based research and pedagogy

(Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001; Candlin & Murphy, 1987; Crookes & Gass, 1993a,

1993b; Ellis, 2003; Lee, 2000; Long, 1985, 1989; Nunan, 1989; Prabhu, 1987; Skehan,

1998a; J. Willis, 1996a; Yule, 1997; see also Brown, Anderson, Shillcock, & Yule,

1984). Drawing upon mainstream educational research (e.g., Doyle, 1986; Doyle &

Carter, 1984), Crookes and Gass (1993a, 1993b) suggest that the concept is helpful in

understanding how teachers and students view the classroom and how teachers plan

lessons. To quote Doyle (1983), the school curriculum can be seen as a "collection of

academic tasks" (p. 121, cited in Mohan, 1990). Likewise, Scollon and Scollon (1995)

propose that tasks are "the most fruitful place to begin an analysis" (p. 281) because they

are building blocks through which organizations such as corporations and schools

' I use the term ESL not only to refer to students enrolled in language programs, but also to those who grew
up using a language other than English, whether they are international graduate students or immigrants in
an English-speaking country. As we will see later, the key teacher in this study, who speaks English as a
third language, often referred to herself as an "ESL person."

1
organize themselves, and in which their philosophies, values, and institutional cultures all

manifest themselves. Hence, task is a practical tool that can be used to plan and study

various aspects and processes of organizations.

1.2 The Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

The present study examined the academic discourse socialization of Japanese

university students during their year-long studies in a sheltered content course on

intercultural communication and research methodologies in social science and education.

The study focused on the oral presentation component of their project work as a major

unit of analysis. Throughout the year, students were required to work in pairs or groups in

and out of the classroom to accomplish their in-class tasks, includingfinalpresentations

of their projects. In other words, the purpose of the study was to examine the group work

which L2 students who shared the samefirstlanguage (LI) engaged in, in the presence

and absence of their teachers, and to uncover the learning opportunities that such work

made available for them in formal and informal socio-educational contexts. Informed by

sociocultural theories of learning (e.g., Lantolf, 2000b; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Ochs,

1988; Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978; Wells, 1999a; Wertsch, 1991b), the present study

sought to address the following questions:

(1) What is the nature of the institutional and classroom culture in which
undergraduate ESL students perform their oral academic presentations? How is
this task environment organized?

(2) What are some of the features of a valued (or "good") academic oral
presentation as perceived by the teachers and students?

(3) How do students exercise their agency to undertake their presentation tasks?
What are the consequences of these agentive acts?

(4) How do students, through their participation in an academic oral presentation,

become prepared for their subsequent participation in similar or related activities?

2
1.3 The Statement of the Problem

Many task-based studies to date have focused primarily on L2 students doing

narrowly defined tasks in classrooms or laboratory settings. What about students'

learning outside the classroom? How do L2 students work together out of class time to

undertake their in-class tasks? What learning opportunities are available? Mohan (2001)

argues that the challenge for teachers is "to help students take more control over their

own learning, and have access to resources and a sense of direction, not simply at the

micro-level of the brief task, but at the macrolevel of the longer cycles of academic

work" (p. 125). Likewise, van Lier (1996) argues that students must gradually "learn to

make choices about how to plan and conduct tasks (including field work, investigations,

reports, presentations, etc.), since only then will they develop the sense of self-

determination that fosters intrinsic motivation" (p. 213). To better understand these

teaching-learning processes, researchers need to take a broader view of task.

Additionally, as some researchers point out (Beckett, 1999, 2002; Eyring, 1989), there

have been only a few formal studies on L2 students' learning through project work.

Given the importance of students' learning to make decisions about their own tasks (van

Lier, 1996), project work seems to provide a crucial context for this learning as it gives

students a wider choice about and more responsibilities for the planning of their

activities. It then follows that studies on L2 project work would yield valuable insights

about students' development of autonomy (Macaro, 1997; van Lier, 1996) as well as

linguistic, sociocultural, and content-area knowledge (Beckett, 1999).

Moreover, only a few studies have examined L2 students' learning about and

learning from academic oral tasks (e.g., Duff, 1995, 1996, 2002b; Lynch & Maclean,

3
2001; Morita, 2000, 2002; Varela, 1997). As we will see in later chapters, one of the

major tasks student-participants in the present study were required to do was presenting

orally on research findings. Ferris and Tagg's (1996b) review of the literature suggests

that "ESL college/university students are often intimidated by academic speaking tasks,

including both formal presentations and participation in large- or small-group class

discussions" (p. 300). Previous research suggests that in content area courses, such oral

tasks, along with literacy tasks, are an important means to L2 students becoming

participants in and members of their target discourse communities, thus providing a vital

context for academic discourse socialization (Duff, 1995, 1996; Morita, 1996, 2000;

Zappa-Hollman, 2002; for research on writing tasks, see, for example, Prior, 1995, 1998;

Spack, 1998). Yet, this is a relatively unexplored area of task-based L2 research.

Moreover, as Mohan (1990) points out, some of the tasks examined in SLA

studies are "isolated from and unconnected with earlier and later tasks" (p. 120). Because

of their major goal to psycholinguistically inform syllabus design, many studies have

isolated different demands of tasks in order to examine the L2 use and cognitive

processing in which individuals engaged as they performed different tasks under different

conditions. These psycholinguistic studies have contributed greatly to our knowledge

about microprocesses of students' L2 discourse within tasks (Mohan & Marshall Smith,

1992). But we know relatively little about the macroprocesses weaving together those

tasks (Mohan & Marshall Smith, 1992). Mohan (1990) asserts that tasks selected in an

academic content course like the one being reported in the present study should "form a

coherent progression within the context of the subject area, constituting a complex

'ecology' of tasks" (p. 138). Likewise, van Lier, (1996) argues, "a progression of tasks
2
Here, I am using Cole's (1996) notion of "context as that which weaves together" (p. 135).

4
without some continuity or systematicity in terms of content progression (or coherence)

would lead to a very disjointed, 'scattergun' syllabus" (p. 205; see also van Lier, 2004).

Therefore it is vital that more research attention be paid to the ecology of tasks.

Furthermore, as Skehan (1998b) points out, most of the task-based L2 studies

have been cross-sectional and do not have much to say about student learning that can be

accomplished through particular tasks over an extended period of time. Given that

language learning is a long process, it is necessary for L2 researchers to conduct

longitudinal studies that explore how task performance at a given time relates to longer-

term change (Skehan, 1998b). Skehan further suggests that teacher-led action research

would complement this effort since teachers possess extended knowledge about their

students. Similarly, qualitative, longitudinal studies that require researchers to spend

considerable amount of time with their participants provide valuable insights about

students' learning about and learning from tasks over time.

1.4 The Significance of the Study

The present study makes several important contributions to the field, especially in

the areas of task-based L2 research and academic discourse socialization. For one thing,

while focusing on the oral presentation component of project work, the study examines

the ecology of tasks (Mohan, 1990). As Mohan (2001) points out, this is a relatively

unexplored area in task-based L2 research; however, from a language socialization

perspective, it is vital to consider "how tasks fit into a larger whole" (p. 125). As part of

its effort to examine the classroom context of the presentation task, this study therefore

examines the ecology of the tasks and sheds light on the important role of the teacher as

organizer of the learning environment.

5
 Another unique contribution is that it offers a behind-the-scenes view at L2

students' task preparation. As we will see in Chapter 3, key students and their partners

were observed and audio- and video-recorded as they prepared for their oral presentations

out of class time. This means that I was "there" most of the time to see this happen

(Keyton, 1999). Sometimes two groups met at the same time, and I had to miss one of

these meetings. Even in such situations, I still had access to the inner workings of both

groups, thanks to the students' willingness to record their activities. To the best of my

knowledge, no previous study has examined L2 students' out-of-class task-preparatory

activities more directly and intensively than the present study. By using an ethnographic
3

case study approach, the study highlights the role of personal agency and interpersonal

collaboration in students' learning through group tasks. Also, as a study conducted with a

group of Japanese students, this investigation provides insights about the role of LI in L2

students' accomplishment of academic tasks.

A third contribution is that unlike most L2 research, the present study examined

students' task-related strategies and performance as they evolved over time. As

mentioned earlier, the study observed key students and their partners' task-preparatory

activities in and out of class time. As such, it reveals the cumulative effects of their

participation in the development of knowledge and skills required to accomplish their

academic presentation tasks. Furthermore, as it followed the key students for more than

one cycle of project work over the year, the study provides insights about their personal

transformation through repeated involvement in oral presentation tasks.

However, Heath (1998, 1999, 2000b) conducted a series of ethnographic studies to examine LI English-
speaking adolescents' preparation for and performance of a variety of tasks in non-school settings.

6
1.5 Previous Approaches to Task-Based Research

Many L2 researchers take a psycholinguistic approach to task-based research,

4

which falls into several major strands (see Ellis, 2000, 2003; Skehan, 1998b). One strand

draws upon the input/interaction model of second language acquisition (SLA). Inspired

by the work of such scholars as Hatch (1978), Krashen (e.g., 1982), and Long (e.g., 1980,

1983), researchers in this tradition argue that in order for SLA to take place, learners need

to receive abundant comprehensible input, and one effective way of making input

comprehensible and manageable is to negotiate for meaning (Gass, 1997; Pica, Kanagy &

Falodun, 1993). Negotiation of meaning is defined by Pica (1992) as "interactions in

which learners and their interlocutors adjust their speech phonologically, lexically, and

morphosyntactically to resolve difficulties in mutual understanding that impede the

course of their communication" (p. 200). Thus, the goal of this research is to uncover

which task types and conditions are apt to generate most interactional modifications

(Ellis, 1994; Skehan, 1998b). For example, Futaba's (1994) quasi-experimental study

showed that his Japanese participants produced significantly more negotiation of meaning

and negative feedback when paired with another Japanese participant than when paired

with a native speaker of English and that there was no significant difference in input

modification between those students in NS-NNS dyads and NNS dyads, suggesting that

sharing a first language may contribute positively to SLA by yielding more negotiation.

Having reviewed various task-based L2 studies, Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun

(1993) identified several task features that play a critical role in promoting negotiated

interactions. One of these features concerns information exchange. Research findings

4
Like Ellis (2000), 1 use the term "psycholinguistic" to refer to a computational model of second language
acquisition, while acknowledging that Vygotsky's theory can also be considered as psycholinguistic (see,
for example, Anton & DiCamilla, 1998; Lantolf & Ahmed, 1989; Wertsch, 1978).

7
suggest that two-way communication tasks generate significantly more negotiation work

than one-way communication tasks (Long, 1980, 1989). This is because in a two-way

task, all participants have fragments of relevant information which must be shared for

successful completion of the task. Thus, tasks that require two-way information exchange

are claimed to be more conducive to SLA than tasks that require one-way information

exchange (Long, 1989; Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993).

Another influential strand of task-based L2 research is the cognitive approach

proposed and developed by Skehan and his colleagues (e.g., Bygate, 1996, 2001; Foster

& Skehan, 1996, 1999; Mehnert, 1998; Robinson, 2001a, 2001b; Skehan, 1996, 1998a;

Skehan & Foster, 1997). Researchers in this psycholinguistic tradition argue that since

humans are limited in their attentional capacities, they choose "to attend to some things
5

at the expense of others, and the choice of attentional direction, as well as the use of

attentional resources themselves, have costs as far as the processing of potential foregone

material is concerned" (Skehan, 1996, p. 45). In other words, because of their limited

information-processing abilities, it is difficult for individuals to attend to and process

both form and meaning simultaneously (Skehan, 1998a; cf. Robinson, 2001a).

One major goal of this line of research is to contribute to L2 syllabus design by

researching the relative complexity of various types of tasks, which provides a sound

basis for pedagogical decisions for task sequencing (Robinson, 2001a; Skehan, 1998a,

1998b). Skehan (1996) discusses three aspects of task performance-accuracy, fluency

and complexity—which are in competition for attentional resources. In other words, there

are "trade-off effects" among these variables (Skehan, 1996, 1998a). Skehan suggests

5
Van Lier (1996) likewise states that "focal attention is a limited resource which cannot be directed toward
several targets at once" (p. 75).

8
that task-based pedagogy should aim to help students achieve balanced L2 development

and that good task choice will result in a sound balance between accuracy and fluency as

well as in opportunities for previous restructuring to be integrated into ongoing L2 use.

Similarly, By gate (1994) discusses the psycholinguistic and pedagogical rationale

of the information-processing approach. He claims that psycholinguistically, the

manipulation of tasks allows teachers to vary the amount and focus of pressure students

are placed under in performing the task, and this provides them with the basis for

evaluation of student performance and of task effects. Pedagogically, as Bygate claims,

by manipulating different aspects of tasks, teachers can raise students' awareness of the

major purpose(s) of a given task. This ensures that students carry out current and future

versions of the task with that purpose in mind (Bygate, 1994).

In both input-interaction and cognitive perspectives, task is thus viewed as a

construct that determines the type of language use and information processing that

learners will engage in and, it is claimed, the learning outcomes to be expected (see Ellis,

2000; Robinson, 2001a; Skehan, 1998a). However, as Coughlan and Duffs (1994) study

indicated, individuals' perception of and orientation to the same task may differ and may

also change over time, thus yielding potentially different activities each time (see also

Lantolf & Ahmed, 1989; Leung, Harris, & Rampton, 2004; Mohan & Marshall Smith,

1992; Roebuck, 2000). Likewise, Mercer (1992) argues that "any task or activity does not

exist independently of the ways in which participants (experimenters and subjects,

teachers and learners) contextualize it" (p. 33; see also Guberman, 1999; Peters, 1996 for

similar arguments). Moreover, van Lier (1992), while acknowledging its contribution to

the field, argues that by focusing on a certain form of negotiation of meaning (i.e.,

9
repair), much task-based L2 research "sidesteps the issue of contingency, or the quality of

social interaction and its potential learning value, and blocks it from view" (p. 100; see

also Nakahama, Tyler, & van Lier, 2001; Ondarra, 1997; van Lier & Matsuo, 2000).

Along these lines, increasing numbers of L2 researchers have recently turned to

more context-sensitive approaches such as Vygotskian sociocultural, activity theory (e.g.,

Lantolf, 2000b; Ohta, 1995, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 2000; van Lier, 1996, 2004), and

language socialization (e.g., Duff, 1995, 1996, 2002b; Mohan & Marshall Smith, 1992;

Morita, 2000; Poole, 1992), perspectives that attribute greater agency to individuals

(Duff, 2003; Hatano, 1993). Central to these sociocultural perspectives is the assumption

that newcomers to a community develop their linguistic and sociocultural knowledge

through observation of and participation in language-mediated interactions with the

assistance of more experienced members of that community (Gutierrez, 1995; Heath,

1983; Ochs, 1988; Rogoff, 1990, 1995; Schieffelin, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978; Watson-

Gegeo, 1992; Wertsch, 1991b; see also Lave & Wenger, 1991).

In such a perspective, human beings are viewed as active agents who can make

choices about their own learning and socialization (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 1995, 2001;

Wells, 1998a; see also Linell, 1998; Schegloff, Ochs, & Thompson, 1996), both enabled

and constrained by the environment (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Norton & Toohey, 2001;

van Lier, 1996, 2000, 2002). Informed by these perspectives, some L2 researchers have

recently examined the role of peer support in L2 classrooms beyond negotiation alone,

reporting on students' use of effective scaffolds (Donato, 1994) and the co-construction

of linguistic knowledge and meaning through collaborative dialogues (Swain & Lapkin,

1998, 2000, 2001; see also Ohta, 1995, 2001). Other sociocultural studies, like earlier

10
computational ones (e.g., the aforementioned Futaba, 1994, study), have examined both

the quality and quantity of ESL students' discourse as they performed different tasks with

native speakers (NS) of English (Nakahama et al., 2001) and as they performed the same

task with different normative interlocutors (van Lier & Matsuo, 2000).

1.6 Defining K e y T e r m s

In this section, I will explain some of the key terms task, activity, task

preparation, performance, project work, and academic task as they are used in this

dissertation.

1.6.1 T a s k and Activity

The present study adopts Coughlan and Duffs (1994) distinction between task

and activity, which draws upon the perspective of activity theory (see Chapter 2)

developed by Vygotsky's colleagues and followers (e.g., A. N. Leont'ev, 1981; Wertsch,

1991b). Coughlan and Duff report that given the same picture-description task under the

same conditions, different participants produced different types of discourse (see also

Duff, 1993b). Moreover, their analysis showed that the same participant produced

different types of discourse at different times, indicating that individuals as active agents

can interpret tasks and perform them in ways that are different from those expected by

the researcher. Thesefindingslend support to several other studies that identified a great

gap between teachers' perceptions of tasks and those of students (Barkhuizen, 1998;

Block, 1994, 1996; Kumaravadivelu, 1991; Nelson, 1990; see also Beckett, 1999). Based

upon their findings, Coughlan and Duff (1994) argue that a task is "a blueprint" assigned

to research participants for the purpose of eliciting linguistic data whereas an activity is

participants' construction and operationalization of the blueprint. In other words, a task is

11
something which researchers/teachers expect their participants/students to do whereas an

activity is something which participants/students who have different motives, goals, and

histories actually do. To use Breen's (1987, 1989) words, task is a "workplan" developed

by task designers including teachers, researchers, textbook writers, and learners

themselves whereas activity is a "process" constructed by task participants.

6

More recently, Lantolf and Pavlenko (2001) argue that even if individuals are

engaged in the same overt behaviors, "cognitively, they are not all engaged in the same

activity" (p. 148). This is because it is the activity that individuals engage in and the

significance that L2 study has for them in their lives that shape their orientation to learn

or not (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001; see also Holliday, 1994 for a similar argument). All of

these arguments "encourage us to study the process, not just the outcomes, of learning"

(Mercer, 1992, p. 34, emphasis original). Examining more macro-level processes related

to the task (Mohan & Marshall Smith, 1992, p. 88), including students' task preparation,

as well as their actual task performance, would help us gain more insights not only into

the learning opportunities made available through group work (Ochs, 1988; van Lier,

2000), but also into their orientation to and contextualization of the task.

1.6.2 Task Preparation

In the L2 research literature, task preparation has often been conceived as pre-task

planning. For example, several studies (e.g., Crookes, 1989; Foster & Skehan, 1996;

Mehnert, 1998; Wendel, 1997) defined planning as providing participants with a limited

amount of planning time (e.g., ten minutes) prior to doing researcher-developed tasks

such as information gap tasks, narrative tasks, and decision-making tasks under different

6
As Tough's (1971) study on adult learning projects suggests, individuals can set up tasks for their own
learning. As such, a task is anything that individuals are assigned to do or choose to do for the purpose of
furthering their learning (Williams & Burden, 1997).

12
conditions (see Skehan & Foster, 2001, for other definitions of planning). A central

concern of these psycholinguistic studies is to find out what type of planning predisposes

individuals to attend to which aspect(s) of L2 oral production-accuracy, fluency, or

syntactic complexity (Skehan, 1996, 1998a)—while performing different tasks. For

example, based on their findings, Foster and Skehan (1996) suggest that task performers

seem to produce relatively accurate language when they are given planning time but no

guidance as to how to use that time. However, as they report mainly on the outcomes of

the tasks performed under different planning conditions, we do not know much about the
7

types of activities participants actually engaged in during the planning stage. To examine

students' agency, the present study uses the term task preparation to refer to all activities

that students choose to do in and out of class time in order to prepare for their ultimate

task, which, in this case, is the oral presentation. As Legutke and Thomas (1991) say,

"the presentation itself is an event of short duration, but it is preceded by a preparatory

process of collective decision making, data reorganization and skill acquisition" (p. 179).

However, although they may be given suggestions or guidelines by their teacher, the

length and type of planning is for students to decide.

1.6.3. Performance

In this dissertation, the term performance is used in two senses. Firstly, this term

is used to simply refer to the execution of tasks as it is commonly used in the literature on

task-based learning and teaching (Brown et al., 1984; Bygate et al., 2001; Ellis, 2003;

Foster & Skehan, 1999; Skehan, 1998a; Yule & Powers, 1994). Thus, performance in this

7
A s Foster and Skehan (1999) point out, this seems to relate to the fact that most studies to date have
focused on individual planning as opposed to group planning (cf., Donato, 1994) because "it is difficult to
know exactly what has happened when subjects engage in solitary planning" (p. 222). One exception is
Wendel's (1997) study in which post-task retrospective interviews with participants were conducted in
order to examine their activities during the individual "strategic planning" stage.

13
sense constitutes the major part of the activity that people construct based on the task as a

blueprint (Coughlan & Duff, 1994), contrasting with the term preparation defined above.

Secondly, the term is used in a theatrical sense. Goffman (1981 cited in Jacoby, 1998)

states that performers or those who present themselves before an audience implicitly

"claim those platform skills for lack of which an ordinary person thrust upon the stage

would flounder hopelessly" (p. 165). Moreover, Bauman (1977) defines performance as

"a mode of spoken verbal communication [that] consists in the assumption of

responsibility to an audience for a display of communicative competence" (p. 11). He

goes on to say:

This competence rests on the knowledge and ability to speak in socially

appropriate ways. Performance involves on the part of the performer an
assumption of accountability to an audience for the way in which communication
is carried out, above and beyond its referential content. From the point of view of
the audience, the act of expression on the part of the performer is thus marked as
subject to evaluation for the way it is done, for the relative skill and effectiveness
of the performer's display of competence. Additionally, it is marked as available
for the enhancement of experience, through the present enjoyment of the intrinsic
qualities of the act of expression itself. Performance thus calls forth special
attention to and heightened awareness of the act of expression and gives license to
the audience to regard the act of expression and the performer with special
intensity, (p. 11)

What is commonly stressed by these definitions is that performers submit themselves to

their audience's evaluation for the form and content of their communication (Bauman,

1986; see also D. Willis, 2003). In other words, the performer's job is to satisfy the

audience by displaying their knowledge and skills effectively. As we will see later, some

of the student participants in the present study saw their oral presentation tasks in this

light. For the sake of clarity, I will use the term performance in combination with the

term task as in task performance to denote the first sense.

14
1.6.4. Project Work

Since the present study focuses on L2 students' oral presentations in the context

of their project work, the notion of project will be introduced here. As several L2

researchers suggest (Beckett, 1999, 2002; Eyring, 2001; Legutke & Thomas, 1991;

Wrigley, 1998; see also Kohonen, 2001), project work has deep roots in the work of

educational philosophers such as Dewey (1916, 1938) and Kilpatrick (1918,1925) that

stressed social facets of learning and the role of the school in educating students to live

cooperative, democratic lives (Schmuck, 1985). As Schmuck (1985) puts it,

Dewey argued that if humans are to learn to live cooperatively, they must
experience the living process of cooperation in schools. Life in the classroom
should represent the democratic process in microcosm, and the heart of
democratic living is cooperation in groups. Moreover, Dewey argued that
classroom life should embody democracy, not only in how students learn to make
choices and carry out academic projects together, but also in how they learn to
relate to one another. This approach could involve being taught to empathize with
others, to respect the rights of others, and how to work together on rational
problem-solving, (p. 2, cited in Eyring, 2001, p. 334)

Thus, the project was seen as a means by which students can practice cooperative and

democratic forms of behaviors under the guidance of their teacher (Dewey, 1916, 1938).

Congruent with this view, Stoller (1997, 2002) suggests that when incorporated into

content-based classrooms, project work can help teachers "distance themselves from

teacher-dominated instruction and move toward building a community of inquiry

involving authentic communication, cooperative learning, collaboration, and problem-

solving" (2002, p. 107).

According to Haines (1989), projects are student-centered, multi-skill activities,

which allow students to choose topics or themes as well as methods for studying them. A

project is defined by Bygate (1987) as "a learning activity in which students do an

15
element of research around a topic to produce a report" (p. 116). It is likewise defined by

Wallace (1991) as "a kind of task-based activity which usually involves an extended

amount of independent work, either by an individual student or by a group of students"

(p. 46) and by Eyring (1989) as "a series of content-based activities which focus around

one broad topic, which students have had measurable input in creating" (p. 7). Thus, a

project involves a series of related tasks that require students to plan and carry out
8

extended independent work on one broad topic, either in pairs, in groups, or individually

by using a variety of skills and knowledge (Beckett, 2002; Beglar & Hunt, 2002; Bygate,

1987; Eyring, 1989; Haines, 1989; Helm, Beneke, & Steinheimer, 1998; Henry, 1994;

Sheppard & Stoller, 1995; Stoller, 2002; Wallace, 1991). As such, much of project work

occurs outside the classroom (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Fried-Booth, 1986, 2002;

Richards & Schmidt, 2002; cf. Turnbull, 1998). From the activity theory perspective

discussed above (Coughlan & Duff, 1994), like a task, a project can be seen as a

"blueprint" for the work to be completed by students, but it is a bigger blueprint for

students' work that extends over a fairly long period of time.

Moreover, as Bygate's (1987) definition quoted above suggests, project work

entails an end product which often incorporates multiple literacies (Fried-Booth, 1986;

Haines, 1989; Legutke & Thomas, 1991; Parks, 2000; Stoller, 1997, 2002; van Lier,

2003; Warschauer, 2000; Wray, 1988, 1999; see also Wells, 2003). According to Haines

(1989), "A clearly defined and agreed upon end product is an essential feature of project

work. Whatever its form, this end product should be the final result of the various tasks

students engage in during the project" (p. 2). So the end product could be an oral

8
In contrast, Leung (2001) states that a task could be a short activity lasting a few minutes or a large
project spanning over several lessons. In his view, a project is a kind of task.

16
presentation, a poster, a video display, a written report, a documentary movie, and so on.

Some studies have suggested that tasks that require an end product of written text or oral

performance might help L2 learners attend to the form of their language production since

they are held accountable for their cumulative task-based interactions (Skehan, 1998a;

Skehan & Foster, 1997; Swain, 2001b; D. Willis, 2003; J. Willis, 1996a, 1996b).

It has been suggested that project work can promote meaningful engagement with

language and content as well as with higher-level thinking skills (Beckett, 1999, 2002;

Jordan, 1997; Mohan, 1986, 2001; Stoller, 1997, 2002). Moreover, Wray (1999) states

with respect to group project work that students can "learn from discussion, from sharing,

from reading, and from contributing their part to something larger. Project work is an

ideal activity in which this kind of learning through cooperation can take place" (p. 20).

Grounded in the work of language socialization and Vygotskian sociocultural theory

(e.g., Duff, 1995; Ochs, 1988; Vygotsky, 1978), the present study, like Beckett (1999; see

also Mohan & Beckett, 2001), views project work as a means to students becoming more

fully competent knowers and speakers about academic content and culture in their target

communities.

1.6.5 Academic Tasks

I use the term academic task broadly to refer to tasks requiring discourse

comprehension and/or production on academic subjects such as literature, science, social

studies, and education (Duff, 1995, 2002b; Flowerdew, 1995; Mohan & Marshall Smith,

1992, Morita, 2000, 2002; Tin, 2000). Completion of these tasks requires knowledge

about subject matter as well as associated linguistic and interactional resources. Thus,

academic tasks include listening to a lecture on some academic topic and taking notes,

17
leading and participating in a class discussion, giving an oral or poster presentation on a

research project or assigned reading, writing a reaction paper to course readings, and

writing a research paper, to name a few (Duff, 1995, 1996; Ferris & Tagg, 1996a, 1996b;

Flowerdew, 1995; Horowitz, 1986; Jacoby, 1998; Jordan, 1997; Lynch & Maclean, 2001;

Mohan & Beckett, 2001; Morita, 2000, 2002; Nelson, 1990; Prior, 1995, 1998; Shalom,

1993; Spack, 1998; Swales, 1990; Tin, 2000; Tracy, 1997; Weissberg, 1993; Zappa-

Hollman, 2002). Obviously, there is an overlap between the notion of academic task and

that of academic project.

1.7 Overview of the Dissertation

This dissertation consists of eight chapters. Chapter 2 will situate the present

study in the literature by articulating, beyond the overview in this introductory chapter,

theoretical perspectives that frame the investigation and by reviewing relevant task-based

L2 studies. Thefirstfew sections of the chapter will explain major principles and

concepts of sociocultural theories and review major studies in the area of language

socialization. In the second section, some of relevant task-based studies will be reviewed

under several headings such as peer collaboration and the role of LI in L2 learning. In the

final section, Rogoff s (1995, 1998) three-plane analysis of activity will be introduced as

a major conceptual framework for the study.

Chapter 3 will describe the methodology and data collection and analysis

procedures used in the present study. In addition, it will present profiles of the key

participants, both teachers and students, discuss the role of the researcher, and the

trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and ethical considerations of the study.

18
 Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 present the major findings of the present study. Chapter 4

will examine the community context of the presentation tasks. It will describe the

institutional and classroom culture in which students undertook their academic tasks,

highlighting the role of the teachers as socializing agents. Chapter 5 will illustrate

students' task preparation. It will show, by providing snapshots of their work at different

stages, how the key students and their partners worked together out of the class time to

accomplish their in-class presentations. Chapter 6 will report on students' performance of

their presentation tasks. The discourse of students' actual presentations will be analyzed

for self-regulation, peer collaboration, involvement strategies, research report, and

discourse management, all of which are categories that emerged from the data. Chapter 7

will explore students' learning across tasks and contexts. It will trace learning pathways

taken by the original key students over the year. Finally, Chapter 8 will explore several

major areas of findings and implications that are suggested by the present study.

Pedagogical implications include the importance of providing students opportunities to

work on their projects in class time on a regular basis, to reflect on their L2 production by

giving them a chance to reflect on their audio- or video-recorded performances or by

having them transcribe their own speech, and to share their group experiences with other

groups so as to help them make informed choices about their task preparation,

implications for future research include the importance of asking students about their task

performance to identify contingency across tasks and of examining the range of tools and

resources used by students in their natural settings in order to undertake their academic

tasks.

19
 Chapter 2

SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES ON TASK-BASED L2 RESEARCH:

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

2.0 Sociocultural Perspectives

The present study draws upon several theoretical perspectives that can be

described collectively as sociocultural, including (1) Vygotskian sociocultural and

9 10

activity theory (A. N. Leont'ev, 1978, 1981; Vygotsky, 1978, 1987; Wertsch, 1985,

1991b, 1998), (2) language socialization theory (Ochs, 1988; Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984;

Schieffelin, 1990; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986), (3) Hallidayan social-semiotic theory

(Halliday, 1978, 1993; Halliday & Hasan, 1985), and (4) situated learning theory (Lave,

1991; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). According to Wertsch (1991b), "the basic

goal of a sociocultural approach to mind is to create an account of human mental

processes that recognizes the essential relationship between these processes and their

cultural, historical, and institutional settings" (p. 6; see also Wertsch, 1990, 1998;

Wertsch & Minick, 1990). In such a perspective, learning and development are seen to be

situated within particular contexts or social, cultural worlds which are "constituted in

9
Sociocultural theories acknowledge biological factors (Bruner, 1983; Duff, 2003; Gauvain, 2001; Gee,
1996; Lantolf, 2000b, 2003; Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984; Vygotsky, 1987; Wells, 2000; Wertsch, 1991b).
Ochs and Schieffelin (1984) state: "sociocultural systems are to be considered as one force influencing
language acquisition. Biological predispositions, of course, have a hand in this as well" (p. 309). Bruner
(1983) likewise argues that it is the interaction between the innate, biologically constituted Language
Acquisition Device and the socioculturally structured environment acting as the Language Acquisition
Support System that makes it possible for the child to participate in the discourse community and the
culture to which language provides access. To quote Gauvain (2001), "A focus on the social contributions
to cognitive development does not imply that internal, biological contributions are unimportant" (p. 46).
10
Wertsch, del Rio, and Alvarez (1995) state: "'cultural-historical' or 'sociohistorical' are more appropriate
terms when referring to the heritage we recognize from Vygotsky, Leont'ev, Luria, and many other Soviet
psychologists. However, we believe that "sociocultural" is a better term when it comes to dealing with how
this heritage has been appropriated in contemporary debates in the human sciences, at least in the West" (p.
6, emphasis original, see also Wertsch, 1991b). I will use this term in this dissertation (see Cole, 1996;
Mercer, 1994; Wells & Claxton, 2002 for other options).

20
relation with persons acting," (Lave, 1993, p. 5; see also Lave, 1988; Lave & Wenger,

1991; Rogoff, 1990, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978; Watson-Gegeo, 1992). In the first few

sections of this chapter, I will outline the theoretical perspectives informing the present

study, discussing their assumptions about language and learning. This will be followed by

a review of the literature on task-based L2 studies informed by sociocultural theories.

2.1 Vygotskian Sociocultural and Activity Theory

2.1.1 Sociocultural Origins of Individual Mental Functioning

Vygotsky and his colleagues and followers have argued that children acquire the

tools of thinking and learning through social interaction with more capable members of

their community, and that this process be viewed in the context of their culture (e.g.,

Cole, 1996; Luria, 1976; Mercer, 1992, 2000; Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989; Rogoff,

1990, 2003; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Vygotsky, 1978, 1981, 1987; Wertsch, 1991b,

1998). In Vygotskian sociocultural theory, language is considered to be a major tool that

people use to participate in a variety of sociocultural activities. For instance, Mercer

(1995b, 2000) states that people use language to think together, jointly make sense of

experience, and solve problems. In this sense, language is a tool for doing joint

intellectual activity or what Mercer terms "interthinking" (Mercer, 2000, p. 1).

Furthermore, seeing learning as semiotic apprenticeship, Wells (1999a) suggests that

cultural resources that mediate human actions and interactions include: "(a) attitudes and

values concerning what are worthwhile activities to engage in; (b) understanding of the

practice involved in these activities, and (c) mastery of the relevant artifacts and of the

procedural and substantive knowledge associated with their use" (p. 138). Among these

21
resources, language is viewed to be "the master tool" (Cole, 1994, quoted in Wells,

1999a) or "the tool of tools" (Luria, n.d., cited in Cole, 1996; see also Wells, 1999a).

Vygotsky (1978, 1981) claims that children's higher (cultural) mental functions,

including abstract reasoning, intentional attention, planning, and decision making, are

developed through language-mediated interpersonal activities led by adults or more

competent peers. According to his genetic law of cultural development,

Any function in the child's cultural development appears twice, or on two planes.
First it appears on the social plane, and then on the psychological plane. First it
appears between people as an interpsychological category, and then within the
child as an intrapsychological category. This is equally true with regard to
voluntary attention, logical memory, the formation of concepts, and the
development of volition. (Vygotsky, 1981, p. 163)

Thus, all the higher mental functions are viewed as evolving from social relations

between human individuals (Vygotsky, 1978). Knowledge and skills of social origin

become part of one's internal functioning through a process called internalization^

Here, it is important to note that Vygotsky's argument is not simply that social interaction

results in children's capacities to think logically, solve problems, or evaluate a variety of

processes; it is rather that "the very means (especially speech) used in social interaction

are taken over by the individual child and internalized" (Wertsch, 1981, p. 146). In other

words, Vygotsky argues that learned social speech is transformed into silent inner speech

or verbal thought. More importantly, Vygotsky's notion of internalization does not refer

to a mechanical process of covert imitation (Cazden, 1988), nor does it refer to "the

wholesale transfer of external mediation to a preexisting internal plane" (Lantolf, 2000b,

p. 14). As Wells (1999a) puts it, internalization always involves an active construction of

" As Brown, Ash, Rutherford, Nakagawa, Gordon, and Campione (1993) put it, the concept of
appropriation (Newman et al., 1989; Rogoff, 1990) is theoretically "more neutral with respect to the
location of knowledge for those allergic to the notion of having anything inside the head" (p. 193, cf,
Rogoff, 1993, 1995).

22
the corresponding process based on the individual's current resources, which may

subsequently transform the existing resources of the culture through inventive

externalization of the internalized process. Cazden (1988) likewise rejects any

mechanical conceptualization of internalization, referring to a study conducted by

Resnick and her colleagues on mathematics instruction that found children's invention of

a more sophisticated algorithm than the one taught by their instructor. In short,

internalization entails "agentive transformation" (Hicks, 1996, p. 136).

2.1.2 Learning in the Zone of Proximal Development

According to Vygotsky (1978), internalization is best facilitated by assistance

aimed at learners' Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), defined as "the distance

between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving

and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under

adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers" (p. 86). To explain the

mechanism of learning in the ZPD, Wertsch (1984) introduced the following concepts:

situation definition, intersubjectivity (Rommetveit, 1974, 1979), and semiotic mediation.

Situation definitions refer to ways in which participants in a task setting (e.g., an adult

and child) define the situation. The same situation can be defined differently by different

participants. Thus, the participants need to negotiate to create states of intersubjectivity.

This is attained when the participants share the same situation and they are aware that

they share the same situation definition, which establishes a common ground for

communication. However, as intersubjectivity can exist at different levels, the

participants have to negotiate further to create an intersubjective situation definition,

using semiotic means, especially language. As Wertsch and Minick (1990) put it, the

23
ultimate goal of this negotiation is to socialize the novice into the expert's situation

definition. To this end, the expert must "understand the subjectivity of the learner and

share it so as to influence it" (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, p. 89).

2.1.3 Private Speech as a Link Between Social and Inner Speech

According to Vygotsky (1986, 1987), what links social and inner speech as a

transitional stage of development is private speech (see also Berk, 1992). In fact, studies

conducted by Wertsch and his colleagues (Wertsch, 1985, cited in Lantolf, 2000b)

showed that in reconstructing a wooden puzzle in accordance with a given model, young

children first relied upon their parents' support, but they later became able to perform the

task more independently by appropriating their parents' verbal instructions in the form

self-addressed speech. This suggests that the children gradually learned to use private

speech, which originated from their social interaction with their parents, and with the

help of this mediational tool, they became able to regulate their own task performance.

However, internalized mental functions do not stay "underground" forever as exclusively

inner speech; they can resurface as private speech (Frawley & Lantolf, 1985; John-

Steiner, 1992; Lantolf, 2000b, 2003; Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Ohta, 2001). Individuals,

faced with tasks of increased difficulty, may (re)externalize their inner speech in order to

control the tasks. From this perspective, "an adult is not an autonomous, finalized

knower, but an organism that recovers and utilizes earlier knowing strategies in situations

that cannot be dealt with by self-regulation alone" (Lantolf & Appel, 1994, pp. 15-16).

This dynamic nature of human mental process is termed by Frawley and Lantolf (1985)

the principle of continual access.

24
2.1.4 ZPD, Scaffolding, and Beyond

Related to the Vygotskian notion of ZPD is the metaphor of scaffolding

introduced by Bruner and his colleagues (Bruner, 1983, 1985; Wood, Bruner, and Ross,

1976) and elaborated on and researched by many other scholars using the Neo-

Vygotskian framework (e.g., Cazden, 1988, 1992, 2001; Greenfield, 1984; Maybin,

Mercer, & Stierer, 1992; Mercer, 1994, 1995b, 2000; Rogoff & Gardner, 1984; Stone,

1993). Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) identified the following functions of scaffolding:

1. Recruiting interest in and adherence to the task;

2. Simplifying the task;
3. Maintaining pursuit of the goal;
4. Marking critical features and discrepancies between what has been produced
and the ideal what is to be recognized as an ideal solution;
5. Controlling frustration during problem-solving;

6. Demonstrating solutions to the task.

Thus, scaffolding refers to various types of assistance, which guide a novice into an

activity or task that is initially too difficult for him/her to perform on her own by
12

reducing the experiences of failure in the task and by encouraging her efforts to advance

(Maybin, Mercer, & Stierer, 1992, Mercer, 2000; van Lier, 1988, 1998a). This assistance

involves attending to both cognitive and affective aspects of task performance.

The notion of scaffolding is based on the principle of handover (Bruner, 1983).

Having examined social interaction between caretakers and young children playing peek-

a-boo, Bruner (1983) views scaffolding as a "process of 'setting up' the situation to make

the child's entry easy and successful and then gradually pulling back and handing the role

to the child as he becomes skillful enough to manage it" (p. 60). In other words, scaffolds

are flexible and temporary structures provided to assist children or novices in carrying
12
Like Linell (1998), instead of using the expressions of his/her and him/her each time I have an anaphoric
reference to make to a prior occurrence of a noun used in a genetic sense (e.g., "a/the novice, a/the
individual), I will use either "he (his, him)" or "she (her)" alternately in this dissertation.

25
out tasks. These structures are gradually removed as novices learn to regulate their own

task performance (Bodrova & Leong, 1996; Gibbons, 2002; van Lier, 1988,1996,

1998a). Thus, scaffolding entails handover on the part of the expert and takeover on the

part of the novice (van Lier, 1988, 1998a; see also Edwards & Mercer, 1987). Mercer

(1992) illustrates how an eleven-year old girl successfully scaffolded a five-year-old

boy's retelling of a picture book story, helping him accomplish something he might not

have accomplished alone.

The notions of ZPD and scaffolding have been further developed by Vygotsky's

followers in developmental psychology, anthropology, and education—for example, as

assisted performance by Tharp and Gallimore (1988), as guided participation by Rogoff

(1990, 1995, 2003) and as construction zone by Newman et al. (1989). These researchers

place more emphasis on the roles of novices as active participants in their own

development as well as others in organizing activities and assisting the developing

competence of the novices. Rogoff s notion of guided participation refers to "the process

and systems of involvement between people as they communicate and coordinate efforts

while participating in culturally valued activities" (1995, p. 142). As we will see later in

this chapter, this concept together with two other concepts constitutes Rogoff s three-

plane analysis of sociocultural activity. The notion of guided participation refers not only

to face-to-face, expert-novice interaction, which has been the focus of much Vygotskian

research (see also Lave & Wenger, 1991, for a critique), but also to "the side-by-side

joint participation that is frequent in everyday life and the more distal arrangement of

people's activities that do not require copresence" (p. 142, see also Rogoff, 2003).

Building on this work, Guberman (1999) examined Brazilian children's commercial

26
transactions as mathematical activities in non-school settings and shows how caregivers

can arrange children's activities from a distance, thus extending Vygotsky's notion of

ZPD. As we will see later, this aspect of ZPD is relevant to the project work that the

participants in the present study engaged in.

Moreover, van Lier (1996) proposes the notion of multiple zones ofproximal

development based mainly on the findings of an L2 study that he conducted with a

colleague (van Lier & Matsuo, 2000). In this study, an adult learner of English, Yuko,

had conversations with her friends who varied in L2 proficiency. Analysis of these

conversations showed that in a conversation where Yuko and her partner were equally

proficient, they both contributed to the conversation to a similar degree, whereas in a

conversation where two participants differed in proficiency, the more proficient

participant did most of the conversation management such as topic nomination,

questioning, and back-channeling. This indicates that learners may benefit more in

certain situations from symmetrical interactions than from interactions with interlocutors

of higher proficiency. Van Lier and Matsuo also suggest, drawing on van Lier's (1988)

earlier work, that interactions with those less proficient may be beneficial to learners

since they provide for them learning opportunities to make choices in L2 communication

that are appropriate to settings, participants, topics, and activities. Furthermore, van Lier

(1996) states, "learners of all ages need (or can benefit from) expert guidance, but in

addition to that, older children and adults increasingly have inner resources on which

they can rely to provide guidance and support to themselves" (p. 193). Thus, for van Lier

(1996), the ZPD can be constructed in multiple ways using experts, peers of various

proficiency levels, and the self as resources. This too extends the conception of ZPD in

27
Vygotsky's theory, which emphasizes the roles of "experts" or members with more

experience and knowledge (see also Ohta, 2001; Rogoff, 1990, 1993; van Lier, 1998b;

Wells, 1999a, for discussions of peers as resources).

2.1.5 Activity Theory

Fundamental to the Vygotskian sociocultural framework is the notion of activity

(Donato, 1988; A. N. Leont'ev, 1978, 1981; Minick, 1985; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988;

Wertsch, 1985, 1991b, 1998). As Wertsch (1985) says, the development of this notion

owes a great deal to Vygotsky's students and colleagues. For instance, A N. Leont'ev

(1981) stresses the situated nature of activity, stating that:

" Human psychology is concerned with the activity of concrete individuals, which
takes place either in a collective—i.e., jointly with other people—or in a situation in
which the subject deals with the surrounding world of objects—e.g., at the potter's
wheel or the writer's desk. However, if we removed human activity from the
system of social relationships and social life, it would not exist and would have no
structure. With all its varied forms, the human individual's activity is a system in
the system of social relations. It does not exist without these relations, (p. 47)

In this sense, seemingly individual activities which do not entail the physical presence of

others, such as making pottery and writing, are inherently situated, since the tools (e.g.,

wheels, desks, pens, language) mediating the activities are themselves culturally,

historically, and institutionally situated (Cole, 1996; Wertsch, 1991b, 1998; Wink &

Putney, 2002). To use Lantolf and Pavlenko's (2001) words, each activity "carries with it

historical consequences of other mediation" (p. 149).

In his theory of activity, A. N. Leont'ev (1978,1981) proposes a three-level

analysis to explicate the development of human consciousness. The most global level

deals with activity energized by an object-related motive. For example, the activity of

grocery shopping may be motivated by the need for food (Goncu, Tuermer, Jain, &

28
Johnson, 1999; Lave, Murtaugh, & de la Rocha, 1984). At this level, the shopper,

although aware of what she needs, is not fully aware of what activity will entail (Goncii,

Tuermer, Jain, & Johnson, 1999). The level of activity thus pertains to "why something is

done" (Lantolf & Appel, 1994, p. 21). The intermediate level is concerned with a goal-

directed action. Again, in the context of grocery shopping, the shopper may, for example,

wish to go to the produce section to pick up some vegetables. To accomplish this goal,

she may ask for directions to that section. It is this notion of goal-directedness that

distinguishes actions from the third concept, operations governed by instrumental

conditions. Operations are automated behaviors that require little conscious attention. For

a shopper who is familiar with the store, turning the cart at the end of an aisle to move it

to the next one may be automated (Goncii, Tuermer, Jain, & Johnson, 1999). Such

operations are governed by the conditions of the grocery shopping such as lengths of

aisles and the size of the cart. In short, the level of action addresses what is done whereas

the level of operation addresses how it is done (Lantolf & Appel, 1994; A. N. Leont'ev,

1981).

A. N. Leont'ev (1981) argues that the same action can contribute to the realization

of different activities; conversely, the same motive can lead to different goals, which in

turn can generate different actions. Wertsch (1985) summarizes the theory of activity as

follows:

An activity can be viewed as a social institutionally defined setting. An activity or

activity system is grounded in a set of assumptions about appropriate roles, goals,
and means used by the participants in that setting. In terms of levels of analysis in
the theory of activity, one could say that an activity setting guides the selection of
actions and operational composition of actions, and it determines functional
significance of these actions, (p. 212)

29
Thus, the goal-directed action of going to the produce section in a supermarket, for

example, can be performed in different activity settings, but the functional significance of

this action will vary depending on whether the agent is doing everyday grocery shopping

or working there (see Wertsch, 1985). As we will see later, the notion of activity has been

incorporated into language socialization research (Ochs, 1988, 2002).

2.1.6 Bakhtin's Contributions to Vygotskian Sociocultural Theory

In recent years, an increasing number of sociocultural theorists and L2 researchers

have explored the compatibility of Vygotsky's theory of learning and development and

Bakhtin's (1981, 1986; Volosinov, 1973) theory of dialogism (e.g., Cazden, 1993;

Johnson, 2004; Ochs, 1988; van Lier, 1996; Wells, 1999a; Wertsch, 1990, 1991a, 1991b,

1998; Wertsch, Tulviste, & Hagstrom, 1993). Bakhtin (1986) states, "Language is

realized in the form of individual concrete utterances (oral and written) by participants in

the various areas of human activity " (p. 60). Utterances are produced by a voice or "the

speaking personality, the speaking consciousness," which "always has a will or desire

behind it" (Emerson & Holquist, 1981, p. 432).

One of the most important characteristics of the utterance is addressivity or

responsiveness. According to Bakhtin (1986), every utterance is directed to someone. In

other words, it has both an author (speaker or writer) and an addressee. Similarly,

Volosinov (1973) argues that a "word is a two-sided act" because it is "the product of

reciprocal relationship between speaker and listener, addressor and addressee" (p. 86).

This addressee, Bakhtin explains, can be an immediate interlocutor in a face-to-face

conversation, a group of like-minded people or opponents, or the self engaged in "inner

dialogue" (Volosinov, 1973, p. 38; cf. Vygotsky, 1987). It can also be a "virtual other"

30
who is not actually co-present (Linell, 1998, p. 35, following Braten, 1992; see also

Wenger, 1998) or even an "indefinite, unconcretized other" (Bakhtin, 1986, p. 95).

Smagorinsky (1997, 1998) reports on the addressivity exhibited by a high school student,

Doug, who participated in his case study on writing. As a research participant, Doug was

provided with a portable tape-recorder and asked to audio-record himself at his

convenience as he reflected on his writing activities. Despite the infrequent personal

contacts with the researcher as well as his physical absence, Doug often addressed the

researcher in his protocols. As Smagorinsky (1998) puts it, Doug was not simply

providing protocols, but he was providing them to someone. Such use of protocols was

also made by all of the participants in the present study who were asked to keep audio-

journals.

Bakhtin regards each utterance as a response (as understood in the broadest sense)

to previous utterances. Hence, the utterance is sociohistorically and socioculturally

situated in that it is responsive to other utterances as well as addressed to someone living

in a historical, cultural, and institutional setting (Wertsch, 1990, 1991b). In short,

Bakhtin's use of the term utterance here seems to correspond with what others call

discourse and/or text (Hasan, 1996). However, as Hasan (1996) points out, Bakhtin also

uses the term to refer to a turn as in turn-taking or turn-allocation in conversation. To

avoid confusion, unless specified, I use the term utterance to refer to a unit of language

production (whether spoken or written) that is "inherently contextualized " (Schiffrin,

1994, p. 41). This meshes with Wertsch's (1998) view that "language is a cultural tool

and speech is a form of mediated action''' (emphasis original, p. 73).

31
 The process by means of which an individual (or voice) speaks through a social

language or voices of a social community is termed ventriloquation (Bakhtin, 1981;

Wertsch, 1991b, 1998). According to Bakhtin (1981),

The word in language is half someone else's. It becomes "one's own" only when
the speaker populates it with his own intention, his own accent, when he
appropriates the word, adapting it to his own semantic and expressive intention.
Prior to this moment of appropriation, the word does not exist in a neutral and
impersonal language (it is not, after all, out of a dictionary that the speaker gets
his words!), but rather it exists in other people's mouths, in other people's
13

contexts, serving other people's intentions: it is from there that one must take the
word, and make it one's own. (pp. 293-294)

What Bakhtin suggests here is that in speech communication, there are always at

least two voices at work: the voice of the author (speaker or writer) producing the

utterance and that of another author or other authors who have utilized the same patterns

of discourse. As Wertsch, Tulviste, and Hagstrom (1993) put it, "from the perspective of

how children come to be socialized such that they can function successfully in particular

sociocultural settings, then, the issue is one of learning how to ventriloquate through new

social languages" (p. 345). As we will see later in this dissertation (Chapters 6 & 8), the

discourse socialization of the undergraduate students through their participation in oral

academic presentations involved learning to speak through the voices of experts

including their teachers, seniors, and textbook writers. Importantly, such learning

process, according to Wells (1999a), is not limited to childhood, but continues throughout

one's life each time one encounters something new in the utterances of others as one

engages with it in the context of a meaningful activity.

However, for some L2 speakers/writers, dictionaries are major sources from which they get their words.
l3

32
2.2 Language Socialization Theory

2.2.1 Principles of Language Socialization and Early LI Research

Another theoretical perspective informing the present study is work on language

socialization (Heath, 1983; Ochs, 1988, 1990; Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984; Schieffelin,

1990; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986, 1996; Watson-Gegeo, 1992), which originates from

linguistic anthropology (Hymes, 1972, 1974). According to Schieffelin and Ochs (1996),

The notion of language socialization is premised on two assumptions about the

nature of language, culture, and socialization. First, the process of acquiring
language is deeply affected by the process of becoming a competent member of
14

a society, and second, the process of becoming a competent member of society is

realized to a large extent through language, by acquiring knowledge of its
functions, social distribution, and interpretations in and across socially defined
situations. This is largely achieved through participation in exchange of language
in particular social situations, (p. 252)

In other words, language socialization theory holds that children and other

novices are socialized through language as they are socialized to use language (Ochs,

1986; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986; Schieffelin, 1990). Thus, language and culture are seen

to be inseparable, and language is considered to be both a major object and medium of

socialization (Bloome & Bailey, 1992; Mohan, 1987; Scollon & Scollon, 2001). This
15

meshes with the Vygotskian view of language as a major symbolic tool that mediates our

mental and social activity (Vygotsky, 1987). The locus of language socialization is social

activities in which children and other novices participate with other members of the

14
Jacoby and Ochs (1995) state: "to study language behavior, discourse, and social interaction...is to study
communicative competence, not as an abstract construct or a model, but as it plays out in all its complexity
as people go about managing their identities, their relationships, and their lives" (p. 179). It is in this sense
that 1 use the terms "competent" and "competence" in the present dissertation.
15
According to Shweder, Goodnow, Hatano, LeVine, Markus, and Miller (1998), much of language
socialization research has been inspired by the work of Edward Sapir, who stated: "Language is a great
force of socialization, probably the greatest that exists" (Mandelbaum, 1949, p. 15).

33
society, such as adults, siblings, and peers. Ochs (1988), drawing upon the work of

Vygotskian scholars, states:

the notion of social activity is of central importance to the sociocultural

perspective. Social activities involving language are structured by linguistic and
sociocultural knowledge; at the same time it is through participation in these
structured activities that children and other novices acquire knowledge in these
two domains, (pp. 21-22)

In a similar vein, Rivera and Tharp (2004) state that "activity represents the framework

society uses for communal actions and for the socialization of its members" (p. 206).

According to Jacoby and Ochs (1995), activities or speech events are co-constructed or

"collaboratively built by co-participants" (p. 175). For example, some studies suggest

activities such as storytelling and oratorical performances are "co-authored" not only by

the teller and orator, but also by their audiences (Duranti & Brenneis, 1986; Tannen,

1989; see also Clark, 1996, for his view of story-telling in conversations as extended

"joint projects"). Furthermore, Ochs (1990) suggests that through the process of language

socialization, both novices and more competent members transform their knowledge

structures and understanding vis-a-vis discourse and culture. For example, teachers may

be socialized by their own students whom they are apprenticing into subject matter

discourse. Their ways of communicating about the academic content as well as

understanding of it may be transformed by their students' classroom participation.

The majority of traditional language socialization studies, conducted mainly from

late 1970s to 1980s, examined how children in various communities (often non-urban,

non-Western) interacted with their caregivers and learned to use their first language (LI)

in various sociocultural settings (see Duff, 2003; Watson-Gegeo, 2001, for a historical

overview). Major language socialization studies include the research by Ochs (1988) with

34
Samoan and middle class Americans, Schieffelin (1986, 1990) with Kaluli children in

Papua New Guinea, Watson-Gegeo (1992) and Watson-Gegeo and Gegeo (1986) with
0
Kwara'ae (or Melanesian) children in the Solomon Islands, Clancy (1986) with Japanese

children of middle-class parents living in a suburb of Tokyo, Heath (1983, 1986) among

three different communities in southeastern United States, and Miller (1986, 1994)

among white working-class families in an urban community in South Baltimore.

For example, Heath (1983, 1986) conducted an ethnographic study in three

culturally different rural communities located only a few miles apart in the Piedmont

Carolinas, called Trackton (a black working-class community), Roadville (a white-

working class community), and the community of townspeople (middle-class blacks and

whites), and examined how children in these communities learned to use language in

their homes and schools. She found that both Roadville and Trackton offered different

literacy practices from those of the townspeople, and that neither community prepared its

children for the school literacy practices. This study revealed how different "ways with

words" shaped children's academic success.

Language socialization practice can take either explicit or implicit forms (Ochs,

1990). One example of explicit socialization is what is called "elicited imitation routine,"

in which an expert member of the community provide a verbal model for a novice and

instructs the novice to follow this model (Ochs, 1990; Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984). For

example, Schieffelin (1990) reports that there was much direct instruction in interactional

routines in the Kaluli community she observed. According to Schieffelin, a Kaluli mother

who wants her child to say something to someone other than herself, provides the

language that she wants the child to use, followed by the imperative elema "say like this."

35
Another type of relatively explicit socialization is that caregivers make assertions about

social norms and expected behaviors, such as "Boys don't cry" (Bernstein, 1972, cited in

Ochs, 1990).

As the above review indicates, researchers have gained valuable insights into the

process of language socialization from those relatively explicit practices and routines;

however, as Ochs (1990) puts it, "the greatest part of sociocultural information is keyed

implicitly, through language use" (p. 291). For example, Duranti and Ochs (1986) report

that in traditional Samoan communities, if someone driving a car avoids crashing into

another vehicle, the passenger will say, "Maaloo le fa'auW." (Well done the steering!).

The driver will then respond by saying "Maaloo le taapua'iV' (Well done the support!).

According to Duranti and Ochs, underlying this practice is the traditional Samoan view

that "something is accomplished because of and through the recognition that others are

willing to give it" (p. 222). Thus, through repeated exposure to and engagement in the

maaloo exchange in their lives, Samoan children may be apprenticed to view activities

and tasks as collectively and not individually accomplished (Duranti & Ochs, 1986).

Relevant to this is what Ochs (1990, 1996) refers to as Indexicality Principle.

According to Ochs (1996), socialization is partly a process of assigning indexical

meanings to particular linguistic forms such as interrogative forms, diminutive affixes,

and raised pitch. In the process of becoming more competent participants in their social

groups, children learn to index sociocultural information through associations between

particular linguistic forms and particular social identities, social acts and activities,

affective and epistemic stances, and the like (Ochs, 1990,1996, 2002). In the maaloo

exchange discussed above (Duranti & Ochs, 1986), the speech act of acknowledging the

36
passenger's contribution to the completed action (avoiding a collision with another

vehicle) indexes an ideology of joint task accomplishment in traditional Samoan

communities (Ochs, 1990,1992).

Ohta (1991) examined how native speakers of Japanese use linguistic resources to

index their epistemic stance. According to Ohta, epistemic stance, which provides

information about the speaker's commitment to the truth of his message, the speaker's

sources of knowledge, and the speaker's certainty about his utterance, is communicated

through epistemic markers. As Ohta says, learning to use these markers is an important

part of language socialization because they are the resources that people draw on to

display their knowledge and construct themselves as experts or novices. Ohta's analysis

of a conversation showed that her participants frequently used epistemic markers

including adverbials (e.g., apparently) and sentence final particles that reduce

responsibility for their utterances. Ohta suggests that the use of these markers may be

instrumental in increasing the politeness of the speakers' utterances because it helps their

interlocutors to maintain or contribute their own points of view. In sum, the Principle of

Indexicality is seen to be central to language socialization research. Ochs (1996) explains,

"indexical knowledge is the core of linguistic and cultural competence and is the locus

where language acquisition and socialization interface" (Ochs, 1996, p. 414).

37
2.2.2 Language Socialization beyond Early Childhood and across Languages and

Cultures

Although many studies have focused on small children learning language and

culture, language socialization is viewed as a lifelong process through which

16

individuals transform themselves and others as they participate in different sociocultural

activities and adopt shifting expert-novice roles (Heath, 1999; Ochs, 1988, 2001). In their

edited volume, Kids Talk: Strategic Language Use in Later Childhood, Hoyle and Adger

(1998) comment that the contributors to the volume would all agree that language

socialization "does not stop at the age offiveor six (in fact, it can be argued it never

stops)" (pp. 3-4). In the same volume, Heath (1998) reports on the language socialization

of adolescents in out-of-school youth-based organizations such as performing arts

programs and sports leagues (see also Heath, 1991, 1999, 2000b, 2001; Heath &

McLaughlin, 1993). Many of the participants in these organizations saw themselves to be

"marginalized" in their schools and feared by adults in their institutions and

neighborhoods. However, in the youth organizations, they were regarded not as problems

to befixedor remedied, but as fundamental resources to be cultivated and as assets to

themselves and their society (Heath, 1999, 2000b; McLaughlin, 1993). Moreover, the

participants were allowed to make important decisions about the activities of the

organization. Findings suggest that the youth were afforded many opportunities to plan

their organizational activities and prepare and evaluate their own performance with each

other and under the guidance of adult leaders and older members, and by participating in

16
Given the existence of internal biological predispositions, one may question this view. However, as Gee
(1996) puts it, "even if biology does determine large parts of the grammar of human languages, this fact is
germane only to rather formal (and sentence-level) parts of language. It still leaves language as an
interactive and communicative phenomenon to be explained in terms of sociocultural aspects of human
activities" (p. 272).

38
these activities, they learned over time to use complex linguistic structures that reflects

planning, hypothesizing, and self-evaluating (Heath, 1998). This seems to lend support to

Vygotsky's claim regarding the social foundations of higher mental functions including

planning, problem-solving, and logical thoughts (Vygotsky, 1981, 1987).

Furthermore, Jacoby's (1998) study reports on the language socialization practice

of a group of physicists at an American university, focusing on their conference talk

rehearsals. Conversation analysis indicated that participants in the speech event co-

constructed post-rehearsal feedback as "common sequences" through which the presenter

and comment providers pursued consensus as to what was problematic in the presentation

and how those problems should be resolved for future performances.

The theory of language socialization has recently been applied also to L2 and

bilingual/multilingual studies conducted in a variety of settings (e.g., Bayley & Schecter,

2003; Crago, 1992; Duff, 1995, 1996, 2002b; Morita, 2000; Ohta, 1994, 1995; Poole,

1992; Willett, 1995; see Duff, 2003; Watson-Gegeo & Nielsen, 2003 for reviews). Like

Heath's (1983) study, Crago (1992) found that Inuit children in her study experienced a

disjunction between the LI discourse behaviors expected at home and those required in

French lessons at school. Likewise, Harklau (1994) and Atkinson and Ramananthan

(1995) reported on the discontinuity that L2 students experienced as they moved from

ESL to mainstream programs at a US high school and university, respectively. In her

ethnographic study, Willett (1995) examined the participation of four ESL first graders

(three girls and one boy) at an American elementary school located in a small

international community of graduate students and their families. While the three girls

successfully completed their tasks by working collaboratively, the boy experienced

39
difficulty appealing for help from his classmates and depended on the teachers much

more often than the girls. This difference led the adults to see the girls as hard workers

and good students and the boy to be a "needy child who could not work independently"

(p. 497). Willett explains that the boy's difficulty related to the social norms of the boys

in the classroom that downplayed help-seeking. In short, this study showed how the

sociocultural ecology of the classroom shaped the children's identities as well as their use

of interactional routines and strategies.

Moreover, drawing on the Principle of Indexicality (Ochs, 1990), Poole (1992)

investigated the types of cultural messages that teachers of beginning-level ESL classes at

an American university displayed through classroom discourse. Through her analysis of

the interactions that these teachers had with their students, Poole found that they encoded

in their discourse cultural norms and beliefs vis-a-vis (a) expert accommodation of novice

incompetence, (b) task accomplishment (as individual product), and (c) the display of

asymmetry. These routine interactional patterns, Poole reports, were in agreement with a

number of Ochs and Schieffelin's (1984) interpretations of middle-class American

caregiver language. This suggests that a teacher's language use is culturally shaped to a

much greater degree than previously acknowledged by most L2 research literature. I will

review some language socialization studies that focused particularly on students'

participation in academic tasks later in this chapter.

2.3 Hallidayan Social-Semiotic Theory

Thirdly, the present study is informed by Hallidayan social-semiotic theory (e.g.,

Halliday, 1970, 1978, 1993; Halliday & Hasan, 1985). As several scholars suggest (e.g.,

Martin, 2000; Mercer, 1995a; Wells, 1999a, 1999b), including Halliday (1994b) himself,

40
this theory appears to be compatible with the Vygotskian sociocultural and language

socialization perspectives discussed above. Like Vygotsky (1987) and unlike Chomsky

(1965), Halliday (1970) views language as a resource for making meaning, not as rules

which are formalized in the individual's head, thus rejecting the competence-performance

dichotomy. This resonates with Bakhtin's interest in utterances (Hasan, 1996).

According to Halliday (1993), "the prototypical form of human semiotic is

language, ...the ontogenesis of language is at the same time the ontogenesis of learning"

(p. 93). Moreover, Halliday (1978) too articulates a language socialization perspective:

The child learns his mother tongue in the context of behavioural settings
where the norms of the culture are acted out and enunciated for him,
settings of parental control, instruction, personal interaction and the like;
and, reciprocally, he is 'socialized' into the value systems and behaviour
patterns of the culture through the use of language at the same time as he
is learning it. (p. 23, emphasis added)

Like Ochs and Schieffelin (e.g., Ochs, 1988, Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986; Schieffelin,

1990), Halliday sees language socialization as comprising both socialization in the ways

of language and socialization through language (Mohan, 1987). Moreover, he discusses

the centrality of language in socialization:

In the development of the child as social being, language has the central role.
Language is the main channel through which the patterns of living are transmitted
to him, through which he learns to act as a member of a "society"—in and through
the various social groups, the family, the neighborhood, and so on—and to adopt
its "culture," its modes of thought and action, its beliefs and its values. This does
not happen by instruction, at least not in the pre-school years; nobody teaches him
the principles on which social groups are organized, of their systems of beliefs,
nor would he understand it if they tried. It happens indirectly, through the
accumulated experience of numerous small events, insignificant in themselves, in
which his behavior is guided and controlled, and in the course of which he
constructs and develops personal relationships of all kinds. All this takes place
through the medium of language, (p. 9)

41
Here, again like Ochs and Schieffelin, Halliday is referring to the relatively implicit

nature of language socialization. To borrow Ochs's (1986) words, children "acquire tacit

knowledge of principles of social order and systems of belief (ethnotheories) through

exposure to and participation in language-mediated interactions" (p. 2, emphasis added).

In short, the social-semiotic view of language development encourages us to regard

education as a process in which people learn to participate in their society as they develop

language practices that fulfill functions that are valued by that society (Cooper, 1990).

In their book on English casual conversation, Eggins and Slade (1997) state that

Halliday's theory of language can be characterized as a "semantic-functional theory of

language" (p. 48). They explain that it is functional in that it construes conversation as a

goal-oriented behavior, and that it is semantic in that it regards conversation as a

meaning-making process. Halliday (1978) identified three metafunctions of language:

ideational (experiential and logical), interpersonal, and textual. The ideational function

enables us to make sense out of our experiences and to describe how things are related.

Halliday (1978) describes this function as "expressing the speaker's experience of the

external world, and his own internal world, that of his own consciousness" (p. 45). The

interpersonal function encodes relations among people in social situations. Language is a

major means through which individuals take part in the world, interact with others,

negotiate roles and identities, and establish and maintain rapport (Derewianka, 1999;

Eggins & Slade, 1997). Finally, the textual function allows us to organize ideational and

interpersonal meanings into a coherent text (Butt, Fahey, Feez, Spinks, & Yallop, 2000).

Ideational meanings realizefield,interpersonal meanings realize tenor and textual

meanings realize mode. These three parameters together constitute the "register" of a

42
text—both spoken and written, and define the context of situation (Halliday & Hasan,

1985). Here it is important to note that the relationship between text and context is

bidirectional. As Halliday (1978) explains, "the context plays a part in determining what

we say; and what we say has a part in determining the context" (p. 3). Thus, a text both

shapes and is shaped by its context (Derewianka, 1999).

2.4 Situated Learning Theory

Finally, the present study is informed by Lave and Wenger's (Lave, 1991; Lave &

Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) situated learning theory (see also Lave, 1988). Based on

their analysis of situated learning in various communities including traditional midwives

in Yucatan, tailors in Liberia, butchers in U.S. supermarkets, and participants in an

Alcoholic Anonymous (A.A.) program, Lave and Wenger, like Rogoff (1990, 1995,

2003), argue that central to learning as situated activity is a process similar to

apprenticeship termed "legitimate peripheral participation." According to Lave and

Wenger, this process refers to "the point that learners inevitably participate in

communities of practitioners and that the mastery of knowledge and skill requires

newcomers to move toward full participation in the sociocultural practices of a

community" (p. 29). Lave and Wenger go on to say that the concept of legitimate

peripheral participation "provides a way to speak about the relations between newcomers

and old-timers, and about activities, identities, artifacts, and communities of knowledge

and practice. It concerns the process by which newcomers become part of a community

of practice" (p. 29). For example, apprentice tailors in Liberia learn to produce clothes in

reversed order. That is, theyfirstlearn the completing stages of producing a garment,

then learn to sew it, and finally learn to cut it out. This practice not only provides the

43
novices with opportunities to consider how the previous step leads to the present one, but

also helps minimize the scope for serious failures.

Of particular interest to the present study is the case of the A. A. program (Cain,

n.d., cited in Lave & Wenger, 1991). Newcomers to this community attended several

meetings a week with near-peers and more experienced members. Their meetings

comprised whole group sessions and smaller group discussions. In the former, old-timers

would tell elaborated stories about their lives as alcoholics, which they had polished over

time. In the latter type of sessions, participants tended to talk about the content of a story

about the reconstructed life. Newcomers learned to tell their stories not through explicit

instruction, rather through exposure to AA. models and through interaction with old-

timers. Thus, in their attempts to tell stories, newcomers were not corrected unless their

interpretations ran counter to the group's beliefs. Rather, old-timers, while ignoring

inappropriate parts of the newcomer's story, would build on appropriate parts of it in

their comments, provide analogous accounts with different interpretations, or compare

the newcomer's stories with their own.

By participating in such practices, newcomers became socialized into the A.A.

model of alcoholism encoded in the practices. This socialization included learning the

group's propositions, and learning to use appropriate episodes as evidence and to make

culturally valued interpretations of events. Becoming a member of this community

therefore required not only cognitive change in the individual, but also the mastery of

particular forms of discourse through legitimate peripheral participation in the A.A.

community of practice. To quote Lave and Wenger (1991), "learning to become a

legitimate participant in a community involves learning how to talk (and be silent) in the

44
manner of full participants" (p. 105). Another important aspect of the socialization was

newcomers' transformation of their identities as "non-drinking alcoholics." To remain in

the community, members must make continuing efforts not to drink. By participating in

the practice of telling personal stories, they came to understand that they were alcoholics.

As such, recovery in this context was not just a transformation of behavior, but also a

transformation of identity and narratives/discourse.

In sum, Lave and Wenger view learning as increasingly responsible participation

in a community of practice. Newcomers learn the sociocultural practices of their

community and transform their identities through a process of apprenticeship called

legitimate peripheral participation, becoming different persons with respect to the

possibilities enabled by the social environment (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Lave and

Wenger explain that the key to this learning is access by newcomers to a wide array of

communal resources including artifacts, information, and the knowledge and skills of

old-timers and other members as well as opportunities for participation (Lave & Wenger,

1991; Wenger, 1998). As such, this theory resonates with the theory of language

socialization reviewed above.

2.5 Human Agency in Sociocultural Theories

The sociocultural theories reviewed above talk more or less about human beings

as active agents (Bruner, 1996; Donato, 2000; Duff, 2003; Goodwin & Duranti, 1992;

Hatano, 1993; Lantolf, 2000b, 2002; Lantolf & Pavlenko, 1995, 2001; A. A. Leont'ev,

1981; Linell, 1998; Matusov, 2000; Ochs, 1990; Poole, 1992; Schegloff, Ochs, &

Thompson, 1996; Van der Veer & Valsiner, 1991; Wells, 1998a, 1999a; Willett, 1995;

Wenger, 1998; Wertsch, 1998). In fact, Schegloff, Ochs, and Thompson (1996) state that

45
in sociocultural perspectives, including those inspired by Vygotsky and his colleagues,

people are not viewed "as passive bearers of unconscious patterns of language and

culture, but rather as active agents whose actions and sensibilities at different moments

influence the organization, meaning, and outcome of events" (p. 6). For example, in the

theory of activity (A. N. Leont'ev, 1981), the individual person is visualized as an active

agent who makes something that was not her own into something new that belongs to the

person, although in a novel form (Valsiner, 1998). A good example of this would be a

Japanese student's creative use of her professor's utterance reported in Morita's (2002)

study. Rie, who felt isolated not being able to participate as much as some of her

classmates in discussions based on technical readings in one of her graduate courses, sent

her professor an email message explaining her situation and asking her to make certain

adjustments to her classes. In that message, Rie used the term "voiceless," taking it from

the professor who stressed this notion in the course related to educational equity. In other

words, the student appropriated her professor's utterance in her attempt to change the

learning environment. As mentioned earlier, language socialization is seen as a reciprocal

process through which children and others novices both socialize and are socialized by

more competent members through discourse (Ochs, 1990). Just like the relationship

between text and context as discussed by Halliday (1978), the relationship between

people and their physical and social environment is therefore bidirectional; in other

words, their actions both shape and are shaped by the environment (Ahearn, 2001a;

Norton & Toohey, 2001; van Lier, 1996, 2000; Vygotsky, 1997).

Linell (1998) defines human agency as "the ability to think and act freely (under

the given circumstances)" (p. 270), and discusses two characteristics of this ability, both

46
of which distinguish human beings from computers. The first is "the ability to instigate

events or initiate actions (or inhibit impulses for action) in ways that can be described as

due to 'choice' or 'free will'" (p. 271). Likewise, Harre (1983) considers "pure" agency

as involving the capabilities to decide between alternatives and to overcome temptations

and distractions to realize plans. To put it another way, agency assumes choice (Bruner,

1996; A. A. Leont'ev, 1981). Thus, some individuals may choose to participate actively

in a certain event while others may choose not to participate in it at all (Eyring, 1989;

Lantolf & Genung, 2002; Morita, 2002; Norton, 2001; Shamim, 1996), and such actions

and inactions have reasons (Bruner, 1996; Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001).

The second characteristic of human agency that Linell (1998) discusses is the

capability to assign meaning to situations, events, behaviors, and actions. Here, Wenger's

(1998) story about two stonemasons becomes pertinent. When asked what they are doing,

one of them answers that he is cutting a stone in a perfectly square shape while the other

answers that he is building a cathedral. Even though these two individuals are doing the

"same" thing, they assigned different meanings to it, thus having different experiences.

Wenger argues that this experiential difference may have consequences, suggesting that

the two stonemasons may be learning different things from the same activity.

Additionally, Pepper (1995), portraying newcomers to an organization as active

participants in their own socialization, states that they do not just assimilate the

framework of the new organization; rather, they negotiate meanings with people around

them, both experienced members and other newcomers (see also Gutierrez, 1995).

Moreover, although not from a sociocultural perspective, Bandura (1997) defines

human agency as "acts done intentionally" (p. 3). He then cites Davidson (1971) as

47
saying that agentive acts or actions intended to fulfill a certain purpose can lead to an

unexpected outcome, referring to the example of Hamlet. Hamlet intentionally stabbed

the man through the curtain, believing that he was King Claudius. But Hamlet later found

to his great horror that he had killed Polonius instead. In this case, the killing of the man

behind the tapestry was intentional, but the killing of Polonius was not. Therefore,

"effects are not the characteristics of agentive acts; they are consequences of them"

(Bandura, 1997, p. 3). Bandura's (1997, 2001) social cognitive theory extends the notion

of human agency to collective agency. People as social beings often work together to

produce outcomes they desire. According to Bandura, the essence of collective agency is

that people share the belief that by working together, they can produce desired effects.

Harre (1993) also states that people as active agents act together intentionally to

accomplish a variety of common tasks and that these actions are shaped by the norms and

conventions of the community of which they were part. Likewise, Bruner (1996)

develops a link between agency and collaboration, saying that an agentive mind "seeks

out dialogue and discourse with other active minds" (p. 93) and that it is through this

dialogic, discursive process that people come to know others and their points of views.

Here, it is important, however, to note that the relations among agencies can be

conflictive at one time and collaborative at another (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001).

Furthermore, informed by Vygotskian sociocultural theory, Wertsch and his

associates (Wertsch, 1998; Wertsch & Bivens, 1992; Wertsch et al., 1993) see agency as

socially distributed and shared (see also Salomon, 1993), and incorporate the notion of

semiotic mediation. For example, Wertsch et al. (1993) write:

Individual(s) involved certainly continues to bear the major responsibility for

initiating and carrying out an action, but the possibilities for formulating certain

48
 problems, let alone the possibilities for following certain paths of action are
shaped by the mediational means employed. The resulting picture is one in which
the irreducible unit of analysis for agency is "individual(s)-operating-with-
mediational means." (p. 342)

Here, agency is seen to "extend beyond the skin" (p. 337) in two senses. Firstly, it
17

applies not only to individuals, but also to groups of people functioning on the

interpsychological plane (see also Spivey, 1997). Secondly, it is mediated by cultural

means, tools and signs, especially language (see also Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001). Wertsch

and Bivens (1992) state that these mediational means are usually not invented anew by

the individuals using them, but rather are provided largely by the cultural, historical, and

institutional context in which these individuals live. This point suggests that human

beings are "empowered as well as constrained in specific ways by the mediational means

of a sociocultural setting" (Wertsch & Bivens, 1992, p. 41). Another Vygotskian scholar,

Matusov (2000) sees agency as the final authority over an individual's action and as

involving "processes of developing and prioritizing goals, problems and choices,

problem-solving, and making and realizing solutions (including moral ones)" (p. 396).

Like Wertsch et al. (1993), he believes that agency has essentially a sociocultural nature,

because, as Bakhtin's theory of dialogism outlined earlier suggests, "thefinalcause of an

individual's actions always has a distributed character in time, space, meaning, and

among direct and indirect participants of the activity" (p. 396). This also meshes with

Ahearn's (2001b) view of agency as "the socioculturally mediated capacity to act" (p.

Ill, cited in Hall, 2002). According to Hall (2002), this view situates agency "in the

17
This is a paraphrase by Wertsch et al. (1993) of Bateson (1972), who argues that it often makes little
sense to attempt to determine a boundary between the agents and their mediational means, providing a
example of a hypothetical blind man who makes use of a cane to get feedback as he negotiates his
immediate environment.

49
discursive spaces between individual [language] users and the conditions of the moment"

(P- 35).

Informed by these sociocultural and sociocognitive perspectives, I view agency as

involving the capacities to make choices and to assign meanings to situations, events,

behaviors, and actions. As such, agentive acts can take various forms including

cooperation, accommodation, compliance, non-conformity, and resistance (Ahearn,

2001a; Packer, 2001; see also Duff, 2002b). I also see agency as applying to people

working as a group as well as to individuals acting alone. People often collaborate to

accomplish their common goals using a variety of cultural means. In such situations,

agency is distributed and shared. However, individuals are not completely free to make

any choices they like, as their actions and perceptions are fundamentally shaped by the

sociocultural contexts in which they are embedded. Agency therefore is socioculturally

mediated.

In this chapter, I have so far outlined four major sociocultural perspectives

informing the present study, paying attention to some of their major principles and

concepts and some related studies. In the next section, I will review some of the task-

based L2 studies that draw on the theoretical perspectives outlined above.

2.6 Task-Based L2 Studies Informed by Sociocultural Theories

2.6.1 Peer Collaboration

Several task-based L2 studies have recently reported that peer collaboration 18

allowed their participants to perform tasks that were beyond their individual levels, thus

providing them with rich L2 learning opportunities (e.g., Donato, 1994; Ohta, 1995,

18
The potential role of peer collaboration and cooperative learning has recently been explored by
researchers in various fields including educational psychology and LI literacy education (e.g., Forman &
Cazden, 1985; Hertz-Lazarowitz & Miller, 1992; Hogan & Tudge, 1999; Wells, 1999a).

50
2001; Storch, 1999; Swain, 2000; Swain & Lapkin, 1998; van Lier & Matsuo, 2000). For

example, Donato (1994) examined group interaction among three students of French at

an American university as they prepared for an oral activity based on a scenario by Di

Pietro (1987). His microgenetic analysis of this task-related discourse showed that these

L2 students collectively strived to achieve grammatical accuracy and that they were able

to provide one another with scaffolds similar to those which experts provide novices, as

reported in developmental psychological studies, suggesting that learners themselves can

be seen as a source of knowledge in sociocultural context. Moreover, some of the

scaffolded utterances identified during the planning session were observed in the solo

performance of the students. This serves as evidence to indicate that the collective

scaffolding documented in the study may have resulted in L2 development.

Ohta (1995) examined teacher-fronted and peer interaction involving two students

in an intermediate Japanese class at an American university. She analyzed how students

at different levels of proficiency used polite requests, focusing on an instructional

sequence comprising a pair role-play activity and the teacher-fronted pre- and post-task

activities. One of the focal students, Becky, was more proficient in Japanese than the

other, Mark. Analysis showed that unencumbered by teacher allocation of conversational

turns and from the formality of public performance in a whole-class situation, these

students were able to use the L2 for a variety of purposes in collaborative pair interaction:

for example, to work on the assigned task, to express humor, to actively test hypotheses

through language play, to talk about the here-and-now in Japanese, and to experiment

with lexical choice. Her analysis showed that despite the difference in L2 proficiency,

both Becky and Mark benefited from the interaction. They were able to share each

51
other's strengths and learn from each other, achieving a higher level performance than

might have been achieved by either of them working alone. Like the aforementioned

study by van Lier and Matsuo (2000), this study expanded Vygotsky's notion of ZPD.

More recently, drawing on Vygotsky's notion of language as a mediational

means, Swain and Lapkin conducted a series of studies to examine how students'

engagement in collaborative dialogue might contribute to their L2 learning (Swain, 1995;

2000; Swain & Lapkin, 1998, 2000, 2001; see also Swain, Brookes, & Tocall-Beller,

2002 for a review). For example, Swain and Lapkin (1998) examined task interaction by

two French immersion students, which was part of data collected in a larger study. In this

study, student dyads were given a set of numbered pictures, and instructed to jointly

make a story based on the pictures and then write it out. Discourse analysis showed that

the two grade eight students used language~both their LI and L2—to co-construct the

language they needed to express the meaning they wanted and to co-construct knowledge

about language. Swain and Lapkin conclude that collaborative dialogues serve as a

mediating tool for L2 learning as well as for communication. This leads us to the review

of role of LI in L2 learning.

2.6.2 The Role of LI in L2 Learning

While use of LI may not be considered desirable in many L2 classrooms (see

19

Faltis & Hudelson, 1998; Stryker & Leaver, 1997 for relevant discussions), its useful

roles in L2 learning have recently been reported by an increasing number of task-based

studies (Anton & DiCamilla, 1998; Brooks & Donato, 1994; Brooks, Donato, &

19
There is a growing body of literature on use of LI in L2 classrooms (e.g., Broner, 2000; Cook, 2001;
Collins, 2001; Duff & Polio, 1990; Faltis, 2001; Faltis & Hudelson, 1998; Hall, 2001; Kaneko, 1992;
Liang, 1999; Liang & Mohan, 2003; Nikolov, 2002; Polio & Duff, 1994; Stryker & Leaver, 1997; van Lier,
1992, 1995).

52
McGlone, 1997; de Guerrero & Villamil, 2000; Fotos, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 1998,

2000; Piatt & Brooks, 1994). For example, Brooks and Donato (1994) report on the use

of LI by high school students of Spanish during a jigsaw task. The analysis showed that

some students used English (LI) to talk about the task, which allowed them not only to

regulate the discourse and the task, but also to sustain their conversation in the L2. Anton

and DiCamilla (1998) examined the use of LI in the task-based interactions of adult

native speakers of English enrolled in an intensive Spanish class. These students were

audio-recorded as they collaboratively worked on writing tasks in pairs. Their analysis

indicated that students used LI (1) to provide each other with scaffolded help, (2) to

create and sustain states of intersubjectivity with each other, and (3) in the form of private

speech to regulate their own mental activity (see Wells, 1998b for a response to this

article). These findings, according to Anton and DiCamilla, suggest that use of LI is

benefitial for L2 learning as it serves as "a critical psychological tool to create a social

and cognitive space" (p. 338) in which individuals are able to provide each other and

themselves with help in their meaning-making effort.

More recently, Swain and Lapkin (2000) examined the use of the LI by French

immersion students in two tasks, the dictogloss task and the jigsaw task. The former task

involved individually taking notes on an L2 text read aloud twice at normal speed and

then jointly reconstructing it as a written text, whereas the latter involved jointly

constructing a story based on a series of pictures first orally and then in writing. Swain

and Lapkin found that lower-achieving student dyads produced more turns in LI than

higher-achieving student dyads. They also found that task types influenced the functions

of the LI. Students who performed the dictogloss needed to use their LI to comprehend

53
the story more than those who performed the jigsaw. The former group used the LI to

understand the oral text whereas the latter used the L1 mainly to do vocabulary search.

Swain and Lapkin conclude that this difference may have to do with the stimuli used for

the tasks: textual versus visual. In short, these task-based studies all seem to support the

view that the LI can serve as a vital tool that mediates L2 learning (Anton & DiCamilla,

1998; de Guerrero & Villamil, 2000; Piatt & Brooks, 1994; Swain & Lapkin, 2000).

Moreover, Liang and Mohan's (2003; Liang, 1999) study on cooperative learning

adds complexity to this literature on LI use. Their participants were Chinese immigrant

students from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China, enrolled in ESL classes at a Canadian

secondary school. An analysis of interviews with students suggested that many of them

had ambivalent feelings about use of LI and L2 during task-based group work in class.

While students gave reasons for their use of LI, including speed and convenience,

perceived lack of L2 vocabulary, lack of familiarity with L2 use among same-Ll

speakers, and peer pressure, they expressed their desire to speak more English and not to

speak their LI in ESL classes. Furthermore, a functional analysis of the students' task-

based interaction illuminated differences in the functions of their LI and L2 discourse.

For one thing, it was found that while their L2 was employed much more for ideational

functions than for interpersonal functions, their use of the LI for the two functions was

much more evenly balanced. Another finding was that the LI was employed more for

reasoning (as opposed to informing, Staab, 1986) than the L2. Liang and Mohan report

that while the LI was used to help learn the L2 and content knowledge, the L2 was often

used to perform more immediate and concrete actions such as memorizing questions and

answers for tests and writing answers to questions for assignments as well as to negotiate

54
content only learned in English. This study sheds a useful light on L2 students' use of LI

and L2 for academic purposes and their dilemmas over the language choice.

2.6.3 Activity Theory and L2 Tasks

Several task-based L2 studies have been informed by activity theory (e.g., Brooks

& Donato, 1994; Coughlan & Duff, 1994; Donato, 1988; Roebuck, 2000; see Ellis, 2003;

Lantolf, 2000a, 2002 for reviews). In the aforementioned study on scaffolding by Donato

(1994), no attempt was made to force the students to use their L2, to influence the process

of their task completion, or structure their task interaction in terms of what steps to take

or what to focus (form and/or meaning). However, presented with the choice as to how to

plan and structure the activity, the students attended to grammatical accuracy as a

collective and provided each other with linguistic scaffolds (Donato, 1988, 1994). As

Donato (1994) explains it, "Focusing on form was not a requirement for the task but

rather how the students operationalized their motive for activity at the particular point in

the interaction" (p. 43). In other words, striving for grammatical accuracy was an

agentive act that the students performed together.

As briefly mentioned in Chapter 1, the present study adopts Coughlan and Duffs

(1994) distinction between task and activity. The researchers report that given the same

picture-description task under the same conditions, different participants produced

different types of discourse and the same participant produced different types of

discourse at different times. This indicates that individuals as active agents can interpret

tasks and perform them in ways that are different from those expected by the researcher,

and that researchers need to study the situation as defined by their participants themselves

As Coughlan and Duff (1994) note, Newman et al. (1989) made a similar observation based on their
2 0

comparison of tasks in laboratory settings with the "same tasks" in other settings.

55
(Kinginger, 2000). Moreover, Coughlan and Duffs data also illustrated how expert-

novice roles shifted in a moment-by-moment fashion in the task interaction between a

Cambodian participant and the researcher, suggesting that the nature of task can vary

depending on a number of resources the co-participants bring to the task, including topic

familiarity and L2 proficiency (see also Ohta, 1995, for a similar finding).

More recently, inspired by the work of Coughlan and Duff (1994), Roebuck

(2000) examined how intermediate students of Spanish at the university level positioned

themselves in written recalls based on three different texts (news reports, one each in the

LI and L2, and one expository text in English). Importantly, in this study, protocols

produced by participants who did not follow the instructions were retained for analysis.

Roebuck presents the case of one participant who admitted afterfinishingthefirstof the

three texts that he had misunderstood the instructions. There were three paragraphs in the

first of the three texts; however, he thought that he was required to read and write about

only one paragraph, and assessed the demands of the task considerably differently from

other participants. Based on this assessment, the participant approached the task as

memorization, thus producing a literal translation of the Spanish text. Interestingly,

having completed the first task with a relative success, he continued to approach in the

same manner the English expository text he read next. However, he was only able to

copy thefirstfew sentences of each paragraph of the original text. This protocol, which

might have been eliminated from analysis in other research, provided valuable insights

about the "complex relationship between assessment, previous experience, orientation,

and even learning within the context of the experimental task" (Roebuck, 2000, p. 87).

56
 Furthermore, Roebuck notes that while some participants operated in a frame in

which they were positioned as "subjects in an experiment" and "university Spanish

students" whose abilities to complete the assigned tasks were to be evaluated by the

researcher/instructor, others appeared to contest this frame by adding their own voices

and by repositioning themselves in various ways. For example, in their written protocols,

some participants used linguistic resources to express their uncertainty (e.g., thinking and

saying verbs, question marks) regarding the content of their protocols, which can be

interpreted as the students' attempts to distance themselves from the information that they

were not certain of. Others attempted to reposition themselves by questioning the

conditions of the experiment or by criticizing the experimental text and the researcher's

decision to use it. These findings support Coughlan and Duffs (1994) argument

regarding tasks and student agency.

Although not grounded in sociocultural theory, Foster's (1998) classroom-based

study lends additional support to an activity-theoretical perspective on tasks. As Foster

makes it clear, this study was conducted during naturally occurring classes of part-time

EFL students at a large British college, and the teacher was also the researcher. Observed

tasks included two required information exchange tasks (picture description task and map

task) and two optional information tasks (grammar-based task and discussion task).

Audio-recorded discourse was transcribed and coded for features of negotiation of

meaning as discussed in the SLA literature (e.g., Pica, 1992; Pica, Halliday, Lewis, &

Morgenthaler, 1989), including confirmation checks, clarification requests,

comprehension checks, and various types of output modifications. The results showed

that none of the observed tasks led to many instances of meaning negotiation. Foster

57
suggests that this finding may relate to the students perception of the task-based

pair/group work as an informal part of class to help "make the classroom a more relaxed

and friendly place where they can practice the target language" (p. 19), not as a learning

activity.

These studies have important implications for the present study. Thefirsthas to

do with the argument regarding task and agency. For example, Mercer (1992) argues that

"any task or activity does not exist independently of the ways in which participants

(experimenters and subjects, teachers and learners) contextualize it" (p. 33). It follows

that researchers must consider participants' perspectives of tasks, which are shaped

largely by their previous experiences (Coughlan & Duff, 1994; Kinginger, 2000;

Roebuck, 2000), "in order to better understand what they perceive to be goals,

procedures, and the significance of the tasks" (Duff, 1993b, p. 86).

Another implication is that given the distinction between task and activity, it is

vital to study the process as well as the outcomes of task-related learning (Mercer, 1992).

The task-based L2 studies reviewed above have contributed greatly to our knowledge

about microprocesses of students' discourse within tasks (Mohan & Marshall Smith,

1992) by illustrating how people jointly construct knowledge and understanding through

collaborative discourse. As Donato (1994) puts it, a microgenetic analysis of task-related

discourse "allows us to observe directly how students help each other during the overt

planning of L2 utterances and the outcomes of these multiple forces of help as they come

into contact, and interact, with each other" (p. 42). However, there are more macro-level

processes that surround those tasks (Mohan & Marshall Smith, 1992) or to appropriate

Cole's (1996) words, more macro-level processes that weave them together (p. 135). For

58
example, Wertsch et al. (1993) discuss the importance of "connecting cultural, historical,

and institutional processes with mediated intermental and intramental processes" (p. 343).

Along similar lines, Watson-Gegeo (1992) suggests that sociocultural research go

beyond the examination of dyadic and small group interactions to include the larger

institutional contexts within which the individual, social group, and community live, and

that "frame, inform, and constrain the socializing interactions of everyday life" (p. 52).

As we will see in the next section, this seems to be an area in which language

socialization studies can contribute largely to task-based L2 research (Mohan & Marshall

Smith, 1992).

2.6.4 Academic Tasks and L2 Discourse Socialization

This section examines several studies that explored L2 socialization through

analyses of academic tasks. One example is Mohan and Marshall Smith's (1992)

qualitative case study conducted in a graduate course in educational program planning at

an English-speaking university. They examined how and why a group of Chinese

students managed to successfully complete the writing assignments in this seminar

despite the fact that they lacked background knowledge about the subject matter and that

they had not obtained the minimal TOEFL score required in the program. Qualitative

analysis indicated that this success was attributable to the cohesive plan and support of

the course instructor. For one thing, the instructor organized the course coherently and

communicated the course organization clearly to the students at the onset. Another

important factor was that the assignments were connected as opposed to stand-alone

tasks, "with earlier assignments building a context for later ones" (Mohan, 2001, p. 125;

see also Mohan, 1990). According to the researchers, the students initially had little

59
understanding of the tasks; however, through their participation in lectures, discussion

groups, and group tutorials, they developed a contextual understanding of the writing

assignments over time, which in turn contributed to their successful accomplishment of

these academic tasks.

Duffs (1993a, 1995, 1996) longitudinal ethnographic study investigated the

interplay of the macro- and micro-level changes that took place in Hungary from the late

1980s to early 1990s. To this end, she examined transformations in academic discourse in

the context of history lessons at high schools running English immersion programs. In

this study, Duff examined two types of oral presentations in high school history lessons:

the feleles, recitation conducted mainly in traditional Hungarian-medium lessons, and the

student lecture, which "represented a new genre of public speaking in the Hungarian

context" (Duff, 1995, p. 514). The feleles was a form of assessment and rehearsed public

speaking that was most commonly practiced in Hungarian classes at various levels of

education. Students were required individually to deliver formal oral reports of teacher-

selected themes from previous lessons without recourse to any written materials. After

each presentation, the teacher would announce the grade for the student' task

performance in front of all the classmates. According to Duff, the feleles served many

functions including exercising school discipline, ensuring daily reviews of lessons, and

preparing students for high school matriculation and university entrance examinations. It

was thus "a rich locus for language socialization" (Duff, 1996, p. 407).

The student lecture was a short presentation (5-15 minutes in length), conducted

in English and assigned on a voluntary basis. Unlike in the feleles, students were allowed

to choose topics considering a number of factors, including the nature of the topic, the

60
due date, the scope of the topic, and classmates' preferences. For this task, students were

also allowed to consult any references they considered pertinent; they were not expected

to memorize their texts. As a result, students tended to prepare their lecture notes, which

they referred to during their presentations. Duffs observations suggest that whereas the

interaction during the Hungarian-medium recitation was limited to the teacher and the

presenter, in the English-medium student lecture, the conversational floor was open to

student-audience members as well. In fact, some members of the audience—especially

inquisitive boys—provided the presenter with corrective feedback on her linguistic errors

and assistance for her search for L2 expressions, and asked for clarification about the

historical content of the presentation. In other words, the student audience negotiated

both the language and content of the oral presentation, thus co-constructing the activity

with the presenter and teacher. Surprisingly, in some situations, students corrected their

teachers' English as well, which indicated the dynamic, bidirectional nature of language

socialization in the schools (Duff, 1996). In short, the student lecture, which was

replacing the traditional recitation practice in many of the English medium lessons,

allowed students to play a more active role by supporting greater student contribution to

the selection of presenters and topics, and in negotiation of form and meaning during the

task performance (Duff, 1993a). These micro-level changes were seen to reflect the

macro-level changes that were occurring in Hungarian society.

Also of great relevance to the present study is Morita's (1996, 2000) ethnographic

study on the discourse socialization of 21 graduate students including 6 non-native

speakers (NNSs) of English (2 from China and 4 from Japan) in an MA TESL program at

a Canadian university. This study analyzed the classroom culture of two graduate

61
seminars, focusing on students' oral academic presentations (OAPs) of course reading

material. Having analyzed her triangulated data (i.e.,fieldnotes, video-recorded

classroom interactions, questionnaires, interviews), Morita identified three major features

of the discourse socialization in relation to this particular task: (1) learning how to

communicate an epistemic stance on the chosen material, (2) use of various strategies to

engage the audience (e.g., making personal connections to the topic of the presentation,

communicating a sense of novelty), and (3) the presentation being co-constructed by the

participants, representing multiple roles, voices, and levels of expertise.

Morita reports that students learned through their engagement in a various sub-

activities related to the OAP: (1) negotiating about instructors' expectations, (2)

preparing for the presentation, (3) observing and performing presentations, and (4)

reviewing the presentation with the researcher. For example, students exercised their

agency in various ways to accomplish the presentation task. In the preparation phase, the

majority of the NNSs chose to rehearse their presentations, primarily to compensate for

their perceived difficulties. They also tried to prepare well-organized handouts, and made

extra notes to refer to during their presentations. In the actual task performance, NNSs

used audiovisual aids such as transparencies for the overhead projector, collaborated

actively with their back-ups, and encouraged the audience to make verbal contributions.

Interestingly, these strategies were perceived as very effective by many of their native

English-speaking (NES) peers. Moreover, NES students too had their difficulties,

including struggles to present a concise summary of the chosen article and to interact

effectively with the audience. These findings suggest, "the NN-NNS distinction alone did

62
not determine how successful a student would be in performing an OAP" (Morita, 2000,

p. 300).

Despite their different foci, these L2 socialization studies have important

implications for the present study. They reveal the dynamic relationship between

students' learning of academic language, content, and culture, and the social and

historical context—with part of that history being their own prior interactions and

conversations. To use Wink and Putney's (2002) words, people, whenever they engage in

any conversations, begin to build historicity upon which they can draw as resources in

later conversations (see also Frey, 1996; Halliday & Hasan, 1985; Wardhaugh, 1985;

Wenger, 1998 for relevant discussions). Thus, context is constructed and reconstructed

not only in a single interaction, but also over time through a series of actions and

interactions (Watson-Gegeo, 1992). Likewise, Putney, Green, Dixon, Duran, and Yeager

(2000) argue that knowledge constructed in one situation becomes socially and

academically consequential in subsequent situations, suggesting that learning may be an

outcome of the "cumulative effects of a number of events," rather than that of a single

event (van Lier, 1988, p. 91). Moreover, Keyton (1999) argues that since relationships

among individuals in a task group develop over time (see also Donato, 1988), researchers

"must be 'there' to see 'these' happen" (p. 217). All of this suggests that in order to

understand the context for students' task, researchers need to conduct longitudinal field

studies and examine their long conversations (Mercer, 2000) about the task as well as the

social and spatial circumstances in which they are situated.

Furthermore, the three L2 studies reviewed above report on the active roles

student-participants played in their socialization. For example, Duffs (1995) and

63
Morita's (2000) studies provide evidence to suggest the bidirectional nature of the

academic discourse socialization between high school teachers and students and between

NES students and NNS students, respectively. In short, the three studies reviewed above

primarily examined the processes of learning through academic task work and the

processes of participating in new discourse communities (Lave & Wenger, 1991;

Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000; Rogoff, 1990).

2.6.5 L2 Project Work

As briefly mentioned in Chapter 1, only a few studies have examined project

work in the context of L2 teaching and learning. These include Eyring's (1989) study on

the implementation of project-based instruction in ESL classes at an American university

and students' responses to this instruction, Beckett's (1999) ethnographic study on the

implementation of project-based instruction for ESL students in a Canadian high school

context, Turnbull's (1998) case study on the effectiveness of multidimensional project-

based teaching in core French classes at Canadian schools, Leki's (2001) longitudinal

qualitative study on the experiences of two NNS students studying at a US university,

and Mohan and Becket's (2001) discourse analysis study on their teacher participant's

grammatical scaffolding of her students' causal explanations in a sheltered content class

at a Canadian university.

Findings from Beckett's (1999) study suggested that the teachers evaluated

project-based instruction positively, commenting on the creativity of secondary school

students and on unexpected learning opportunities that project work can provide for their

students. This evaluation was supported by the researcher's classroom observations,

which suggested that project work provided students opportunities to learn a variety of

64
things, including how to work cooperatively, make decisions, conduct research, and give

presentations in English. On the other hand, despite their teachers' explanations, students

were often unable to see the value of project work. From the activity-theoretical

perspective discussed earlier, students, as active agents, assigned their project work

different meaning from those of their teachers. The present study aims to contribute to

this body of literature by directly examining students' group project work both in and out

of their scheduled class times for an extended period of time.

2.7 Rogoff s Three-Plane Analysis of Sociocultural Activity

While informed by all of the four sociocultural theories reviewed above, the

present study adopts Rogoff s (1993, 1995, 1998, 2003) three-plane analysis of

sociocultural activity as a central conceptual framework to examine the microprocesses

of students' discourse within tasks and the macroprocesses weaving them together

(Mohan & Marshall Smith, 1992). Like Lave and Wenger (1991), Rogoff (2003) sees

human learning and development as "a process of people's changing participation in

sociocultural activities of their communities" (p. 52). Congruent with other sociocultural

theorists' views outlined above, she acknowledges the bidirectional nature of this

participation; in her words, "people contribute to the process in sociocultural activities at

the same time that they inherit practices invented by others" (p. 52). Central to her

analysis are the constructs of apprenticeship, guided participation, and participatory

appropriation, which reflect different planes of focus in sociocultural activity:

community/institutional, interpersonal, and personal (Rogoff, 1990, 1993,1995,1998,

2003). Thefirstconcept, apprenticeship, focuses on the community and institutional

aspects of the activity, "involving active individuals with others in culturally organized

65
activity that has as part of its purpose the development of mature participation in the

activity by the less experienced people" (p. 142). As Rogoff puts it, research focusing on

this plane examines socioculturally and institutionally defined purposes, cultural

constraints, resources, tools, and values regarding appropriate means for reaching goals.

This plane of analysis seems to correspond most closely with Barton and Hamilton's

(1998, 2000) approach to literacy research: that is, to analyze events or activities in order

to learn about social practices (see also Barton, 1994).

The second concept, guided participation, focuses on the interpersonal aspects of

the activity. "Guidance" here refers to the directions provided implicitly by cultural and

social values (e.g., internalized norms), as well as social partners that facilitate or restrict

people's involvement in activities, while the term "participation" refers to both hands-on

involvement in and observation of an activity. The final concept, participatory

appropriation, focuses on the personal aspects of the activity and refers to "how

individuals change through their involvement in one or another activity, in the process

becoming prepared for subsequent involvement in related activities" (Rogoff, 1995, p.

142).

Importantly, Rogoff (1995, 1998, 2003) stresses that these planes-

community/institutional, interpersonal, and personal—should not be seen as separate or

hierarchical, but rather as different ways of looking at the same activity. Thus, choosing

one plane for observation and analysis does not mean that the other planes are separate or

irrelevant; it simply means that one plane is foregrounded. Figure 2.1 includes three
21

versions of the same picture of three people participating in a group activity in a

21
I owe the development of this figure to Rogoff s (1993, 1998, 2003) papers, which present different
versions of the same photograph showing a boy playing a word game with an adult and other children.

66
classroom. For example, in the picture illustrating the personal plane, an individual's

contributions are in focus while those of the others are blurred (Figure 2.1c). Applied to

my study, to be described in the next chapter, Rogoff s apprenticeship analysis would

shed light on the social practices of the classroom community into which the students

were socialized; the guided participation analysis would help uncover the interpersonal

processes involved in students' task-based activities; and the participatory appropriation

analysis would reveal their personal transformations in relation to the particular task.

Figure 2.1 Rogoff s Three-Plane Analysis of Activity

Figure 2.1a Figure 2.1b

Community/Institutional Plane Interpersonal Plane

67
Figure 2.1c

Personal Plane

2.8 Summary of the Chapter

The major purpose of this chapter was to situate the present study in the relevant

theoretical literature. In thefirstfew sections, I outlined several sociocultural theories and

research informing the present study: (1) Vygotskian sociocultural and activity theory, (2)

language socialization, (3) Hallidayan social semiotic theory, and (4) situated learning

theory, which collectively emphasize participation, agency, and social context.

I also reviewed some of the task-based L2 studies pertinent to the present study.

Many of these studies examined peer collaboration in pair/small group situations,

suggesting that L2 students can use their own and each other's knowledge and skills as

well as their LI as resources to negotiate, interpret, and accomplish their tasks. I then

concluded that Rogoff s three-plane analysis provides a useful conceptual framework for

research on socialization through L2 project work. In the next chapter, I will provide an

68
overview of the research methodology used in the present study, including the setting,

participants, and methods for data collection and analysis.

69
 Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction

According to Hall and Verplaetse (2000), the study of individual development

grounded in the sociocultural framework (e.g., A. N. Leont'ev, 1981; Wertsch, 1994)

starts with

the analysis of the concrete historical conditions surrounding the individual and
entails the study of the actual processes of interaction between individuals and
their learning environments to understand the specific changes that occur, the
conditions that bring about these changes, and the developmental consequences
that result, (p. 9)

Likewise, Schieffelin and Ochs (1996) state that one major goal of language socialization

research is to link microanalysis of discourse and more general ethnographic accounts of

cultural, social, and historical practices of communities into which individuals are

apprenticed (see also Watson-Gegeo, 1992). The present study integrates an ethnographic

approach with a qualitative, multiple-case study. An ethnographic approach is employed

to address the cultural attitudes, beliefs, and values of the community in which L2

students perform their tasks, whereas a multiple case study approach is employed to gain

an in-depth understanding of individual students' task-related learning and development

over time. In what follows, I will discuss the sampling procedure as I describe the

participants, sites, and the unit of analysis. In other words, I will weave together detailed

descriptions of the contexts of the study and my sampling decisions with the goal of

providing for the reader an audit trail to help authenticate the findings (Lincoln & Guba,

1985; Merriam, 1998). As we will see later, the sampling procedure for the present study

was purposeful (Patton, 1990) or purposive (Miles & Huberman, 1994) in that research

70
sites and participants were selected because they were expected to provide rich

information about the phenomenon under investigation. I will then introduce my key

participants and describe methods for data collection and analysis. This will be followed

by a discussion of the relationship between the researcher and the researched. Finally, I

will discuss the trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) of the study.

3.1 A n E t h n o g r a p h i c Case Study A p p r o a c h

To examine the complex and dynamic processes of L2 students' learning through

project work embedded within sociocultural, historical, and institutional contexts, the

present study employs an ethnographic case study approach (Faltis, 1997; Johnson, 1992,

1993; Merriam, 1998; Nunan, 1992; Stake, 1995). Although the study is ethnographic

research as distinguished from a full-scale ethnography (Heath, 1982; Ramanathan &

Atkinson, 1999), it shares certain basic principles of ethnography which are described in

this chapter. Watson-Gegeo (1988) defines ethnography as "the study of people's

behavior in naturally occurring, ongoing settings, with a focus on the cultural

interpretation of behavior" (p. 576). The emic (as opposed to etic) principle in

ethnography refers to the insider perspective of the people functioning in their

communities, whereas the holistic principle suggests that actions and events must be

understood in their social and cultural contexts (van Lier, 1988, 1990; Watson-Gegeo,

1988; see also Ramanathan & Atkinson, 1999).

According to Wolcott (1988, 1992), ethnography refers to both the research

process and the research product. As research product, ethnographies "re-create for the

reader the shared beliefs, practices, artifacts, folk knowledge, and behaviors of some

group of people" (LeCompte & Preissle, 1993, pp. 2-3). Thus, the primary goal of

71
ethnography is to make tacit the cultural knowledge (Spradley, 1980) of the focal group

or community explicit by producing a "thick description" (Geertz, 1973) or a rich,

participant-informed account of the sociocultural phenomena under investigation (Duff,

1995; Duranti, 1997; Green, Dixon, & Zaharlick, 2003; Heath, 1982; Johnson, 1992;

Nunan, 1992; Schieffelin, 1979, 1990). To achieve this goal, ethnographers spend a great

amount of time in the field doing participant observation, observing the cultural

behaviors of the people under study, conducting interviews and conversations, and

collecting their cultural artifacts (Spradley, 1980; see also Duranti, 1997; Erickson, 1986;

Heath, 1982; Johnson, 1992; Patton, 1990; Rossman & Rallis, 1998; van Lier, 1988;

Watson-Gegeo, 1988). In short, ethnography aims to "learn about what counts as

membership and appropriate participation" (Green, Dixon, & Zaharlick, 2003, p. 210,

emphasis original) in the focal community/communities.

However, as Watson-Gegeo (1988) states, while acknowledging the importance

of individual differences, most ethnographic research is concerned with group or

community "because cultural behavior is by definition shared behavior" (p. 577). To

examine the role of L2 students' agency—both individual and collective—in shaping their

project work and their participatory appropriation (Rogoff, 1993, 1995) in relation to

particular project-related tasks, the present study combines an ethnographic approach

with a multiple-case study approach.

According to Yin (1994), a case study is "an empirical inquiry that investigates a

contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries

between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident" (p. 13). Miles and Huberman

(1994) define a case as "a phenomenon of some sort occurring in a bounded context" (p.

72
25), conceptualizing it as a circle with a research focus in the center. As will be discussed

later, eleven students were selected as cases in the present study. To quote Miles and

Huberman (1994), "by looking at a range of similar and contrasting cases, we can

understand a single-case finding, grounding it by specifying how and where and, if

possible, why it carries on as it does" (p. 29). Thus, multiple sampling helps "strengthen

the precision, the validity, and the stability of the findings" (p. 29, see also Merriam,

1998). Merriam (1998) states that case study is a design particularly suited to an

investigation of process, rather than outcome. This research strategy is appropriate for the

present study because it allows the researcher to gain an in-depth understanding of

processes of L2 students' learning through project-related tasks in their natural contexts.

Bromley (1986, cited in Merriam, 1998) states that case studies, by definition,

seek to "get as close to the subject of interest as they possibly can, partly by means of

direct observation in natural settings, partly by their access to subjective factors

(thoughts, feelings, and desires)" (p. 32). Because of my social constructivist stance, like

Guba and Lincoln (1994), I assume that

Realities are apprehendable in the form of multiple, intangible mental

constructions, socially and experientially based, local and specific in nature
(although elements are often shared among many individuals and even across
cultures), and dependent for their form and content on the individual persons or
groups holding the constructions, (pp. 110-111)

Similarly, Lave and Wenger (1991) argue, "objective forms and systems of

activity, on the one hand, and agents' subjective and intersubjective understandings of

them, on the other, mutually constitute both the world and its experienced forms" (p. 51).

These arguments point to the need to examine the case from participants' emic

perspective as well as from the researcher's etic perspective, suggesting that both

73
interviews with participants and direct observations of their activities are important.

Therefore, the present study examines, by using ethnographic and discourse analytic

techniques, the discourse of task-related activities in which L2 students learn to

participate with the support of their teachers and peers, paying attention to the larger

socio-educational contexts that shape and are shaped by that discourse.

3.2 Research Site and Context

The study was conducted from August 2000 to June 2001 mainly at Western

Province University (WPU), a large research university in Canada. Participants involved

80 Japanese undergraduate students (initial TOEFL mean: 502) and their teachers in a
22

one-year academic exchange program between WPU and Keishin University, a major 23

private university in Japan. This unique joint program, which began more than ten years

earlier, brings approximately 100 Japanese students to WPU every year to live and study

in an academic and residential environment. Most participants in this joint program are

college sophomores and juniors (second- and third-year students) who receive transfer
24

credits for academic work completed at the Canadian university. Their major fields of

study varied from economics and business administration to literature to sociology and

international relations to law and engineering (see Table 3.1). All participants in the

academic exchange program were required to attend a series of pre-departure orientation

22
The minimum TOEFL score for admission to the joint program was 450. Keishin Program participants
were selected on the basis of their statement of purpose, interview, and TOEFL scores.
23
All names are pseudonyms. Key participants were asked to choose their own pseudonyms.
24
There were more sophomores than juniors. For one thing, it was sophomores that Keishin University
encouraged to participate in the joint program. Another thing is that the bachelor's thesis requirement
would discourage seniors from participating. Also, many Keishin students told me that in Japan, university
students start their job search in their junior years, and that being away from home during this important
year would put them at a great disadvantage. There was only one senior (fourth-year student) who
participated in the program in the Academic Year 2000-2001.

74
meetings in Japan from mid-April to early July, where they learned about academic and

residence life from the preceding group of students as well as from the Director of the

program and a WPU student-adviser. At these meetings, students had opportunities, for

example, to observe volunteers from the previous Keishin group perform model

presentations and perform group presentations in either Japanese or English on topics

relevant to their upcoming life in Canada, such as course work, residences, and university

facilities. They also took an intensive academic writing course.

Table 3.1: Students' Fields of Studies (Academic Year 2000-2001)

Department Male Female Total

Law 1 7 8
Economics 2 11 13
Business Administration 4 5 9
Sociology 1 13 14
International Relations 4 21 25
Literature 4 14 18
Policy Science 4 4 8
Engineering 3 1 4
Total 23 76 99

Most Keishin students come to Canada right before the program starts in

September; however, each year, approximately 30 choose to come to Canada one month

earlier to study in a three-week ESL program at WPU through the English Language

Institute (ELI). Thus, the present study can be divided into three phases. In the first

phase, students enrolled in the summer intensive ESL program were invited to participate

in the study, and several students were followed as key participants throughout their stay

in Canada. The second phase, which is the major focus of this study, began when the rest

of the Keishin group arrived in Canada to start their studies in the academic exchange

program. At this time, more students were invited to participate in the study. The final

phase was the pre-departure orientation meetings held at Keishin University in Japan for

75
the following Keishin group. Two of the key participants volunteered to give a model

presentation for the next generation. I observed two sessions on how to do a "good"

presentation at WPU. This final phase thus provided me with opportunities to observe the

students' uptake from their year-long experiences in the academic exchange program. In

the next two sections, I will explain my sampling decisions as I describe the first two

research phases in some detail.

3.2.1 The University Preparation Program at ELI

In the summer of 2000, 31 Keishin students (11 males and 20 females) out of 99

chose to study in the university preparation program at ELI. According to information in

the ELI program handbook, one major objective of this ESL program was to familiarize

students with the instructional styles of North American universities and assist them in

developing knowledge, skills, and confidence that are necessary for academic studies.

The program was open not only to undergraduate students, but also to those starting their

graduate studies and those who already held a bachelor's degree and wished to improve

their academic language skills. On thefirstday of the three-week program, students took

the Institute's in-house placement test that was designed to assess their English skills and

knowledge. Students were placed in one of the three classes (Classes A, B, and C) based

upon the results of this test, rather than on the TOEFL scores they had submitted to the

Institute. Thus, it was possible that a student with a TOEFL score of 600 was placed in a

lower-level class than a student with a score of 550.

Since the three classes were offered concurrently, I had to choose one for

observation. After consulting with Ms. Brown, a head teacher who had planned the

university preparation course, I decided to observe Class C for three major reasons. First,

76
Ms. Brown told me that although all the three classes were designed to promote

international students' preparation for their university lives in North America, the

curricula of Classes A and B were modified to accommodate students' levels of L2

proficiency and Class C was the only one that followed the "true" university preparation

curriculum of the Institute.

Secondly, I learned that there were six Keishin students in Class C (3 males and 3

females) and that they all had different majors (i.e., American and British literature,

economics, engineering, interdisciplinary studies, policy science, sociology). This

diversity was deemed ideal for a maximum variation sampling based on fields of study

(Merriam, 1998; Patton, 1990). The rationale for this type of sampling is that by selecting

a small sample of great diversity (e.g., students from different departments), "it is

possible to more thoroughly describe variation in the group and to understand variations

in experience while also investigating core elements and shared outcomes" (Patton, 1990,

p. 172). The third reason for choosing Class C had to do with the instructor Mr. Jamal

Khan (henceforth Jamal ). According to Ms. Brown, Jamal was much more experienced
25

than the other two instructors in teaching, directing programs, and conducting research,

and he was also doing a Ph.D. in applied linguistics. For several summers, he had taught

ESL courses and teacher training courses at WPU's ELI. Because of this extensive

experience, Jamal, I decided, might be more tolerant of my constant presence as a

researcher. Also, I learned from Ms. Brown that Jamal used a student-centered approach

relevant to project work, the focus of my study. Thus, Jamal's class provided me with

I chose to address the teachers by theirfirstnames in this dissertation because that is what their students
and colleagues called them.

77
rich opportunities to learn a great deal about the initial phase of L2 students' academic

discourse socialization.

Fortunately, Jamal agreed to participate in the study and introduced me to his

class (see Appendix A for teacher consent form). An invitation letter written in both

Japanese and English (see Appendix B for the English version) was distributed to all the

15 students in his class, including the six Keishin students. After my brief presentation of

the research project, they all agreed to participate in the present study (the informed

consent form is shown in Appendix C). Although I focused on Class C, I became familiar

with many of the Keishin students in the other classes because I observed whole-program

events such as guest speakers' talks and university panel presentations as well. While

attending ELI, Keishin students stayed with Canadian families in the suburban areas, with

whom they were matched up through the Institute.

3.2.2 The Content Course at W P U

During the academic year, Keishin students generally take three courses in the

first semester and four courses in the second semester. Each class consists of

approximately twenty students. Students who meet WPU's Faculty of Arts TOEFL

criterion for admission (580, according to the 2000-2001 guidebook) are allowed to take

seeki kamoku or regular courses of their interest in thefirstsemester; students who have
26

obtained a high TOEFL score and average for their Semester 1 courses are allowed to

take one regular course or two in the second semester, depending on their calculated

index number and wishes.

26
Technically, all the courses offered in the joint program were "regular" courses in that students received
transfer credits toward their bachelor's degrees from Keishin University. But Keishin students and staff
members used the word "seekr or "regular" to refer to non-sheltered courses. Thus I adopt this definition
in this dissertation.

78
 One of the courses required of all students who do not meet the university's pre-

requites is a two-semester, sheltered content course through the Department of

27

Language Education, Language Fieldwork A and B. In the Academic Year 2000-2001,

when the present study was conducted, Language Fieldwork A , offered during the first

semester, dealt with intercultural communication whereas Language Fieldwork B, offered

during the second semester, dealt with research methods in social science and education.

I chose this particular course because I had learned from my casual conversations with

some of her students from the previous year (Keishin 9) and her colleagues that the

instructor of the course, Dr. Izzat Mukkammal (henceforth Izzat), was an expert in the

integration of language and content through project-based instruction as well as being a

very respected and popular teacher in the joint program.

After conducting informal classroom observations of Izzat's lessons, as well as

casual conversations with some of her students between February and April 2000,1

decided, like Morita (1996, 2000), to focus on one type of academic task as a unit of

analysis: oral presentations of research projects. In contrast to her study though, mine

looked at ESL undergraduate students' project work both in and out of the classroom,

focusing on their preparation for and performance of oral presentations of their research

projects. Viewing oral presentations as tasks situated in the context of wider project work

(Beckett, 1999; Mohan & Beckett, 2001; see also Mohan, 2001; Mohan & Marshall

Smith, 1992), the study explored Japanese undergraduate students' language socialization

in a content course in relation to this particular task.

27
This course was designed for Keishin students although some other non-native-English-speaking (NNES)
students could register for it with the permission of the joint program faculty. In sheltered content-based
ESL courses, NNES students do not have to compete with their native-English-speaking counterparts
(Adamson, 1993; Faltis, 2001; Reppy & Adams, 2000; cf. Crandall, 2000).

79
 In September, I sent out an invitation letter to all the 60 students in Izzat's courses

except for the ELI program participants who had already signed the consent form (see

Appendix C) and begun participating in the study. All the students as well as Izzat and

her TA, Mr. Abraham Simons, agreed to participate and signed the consent form. As

mentioned earlier, six Keishin students were enrolled in the ELI course that I observed

during the summer. Four of them chose to take Izzat's course (two males and two

females, all sophomores) in the fall of 2000 and were thus invited to participate in the

study as key students. Subsequently, seven more students (2 males and 5 females, 1

junior and 6 sophomores) were invited, resulting in eleven key students (initial TOEFL

mean: 510, slightly higher than the cohort average). Their majors included American and

British literature, engineering, international relations, interdisciplinary studies, law,

policy science, and sociology, most of the major fields of study of the joint program

participants. Again, this strategy was intended as purposeful sampling to strengthen the

external validity of the study (Merriam, 1998; Patton, 1990). In the second semester,

Izzat taught three sections of Language Fieldwork again. Forty students remained in

Izzat's course (more wanted to, but there was not enough space) and 20 new students

registered for it. Again, the invitation letter was distributed and explained to these

newcomers. All the students agreed to participate in the study. Thus, there were 80

Keishin students, including 11 key students, in the study. In Chapter 4,1 describe the

curricular context in more detail, based on observations and other data.

3.3 Key Participants' Profiles

To develop an in-depth understanding of Keishin students' language socialization

through oral presentation tasks in the content-based ESL course, this section provides a

80
few details about each of the key teachers and students involved in this study, including

teachers' educational and professional backgrounds, students' majors, TOEFL scores,

histories of learning English, and purposes for participating in the Keishin-WPU joint

program (see Appendix for more details). These are not intended to be comprehensive

profiles of the participant, but information that might help contextualize the participants'

task-related activities in the later chapters. I also discuss my role as both researcher and

participant and issues of reciprocity and intersubjectivity.

3.3.1 Key Teachers

The instructor of the content-based ESL course, Dr. Izzat Mukkammal, was a

native speaker of an Asian language and spoke several other languages including English.

She started her career as a teacher at the age of eighteen. After teaching English for a

number of years in China, Izzat came to Canada to undertake her master's and doctoral

studies in L2 education. As mentioned earlier, she was particularly interested in

integrating language and content instruction through project work. Izzat said that her

views on teaching and learning were strongly influenced by the work of scholars such as

Dewey (e.g., 1916, 1938) and Mohan (1986). Prior to the present study, Izzat had taught

both undergraduate and graduate teacher education courses at WPU. Academic year

2000-2001 was her second year as a teacher in the Keishin program. Izzat was passionate

about teaching and learning, and compassionate and kind toward her students and

colleagues. She often encouraged her students to strive for more. She knew her

expectations were high but she also knew that her students could live up to or even

exceed them. Being an "ESL person" herself, Izzat was sympathetic with Keishin

students and always willing to avail herself to listen to, and give advice to, them on their

81
academic and personal matters. As a loving mother, she would often share stories about

her little daughter with her classes, which often brought smiles to her students. Adjectives

many Keishin students used to describe her included "considerate," "passionate,"

"knowledgeable," "thoughtful," "responsive," and "approachable."

Izzat's harmonious relationship with her students seems to be illustrated well by

the following excerpts, both of which were taken from students' out-of-class group work:

E x c e r p t 3.1

1 Ken: Izzat tte nan sai nan? [As for Izzat, how old is she?]

2 Mai: Ikutsu kurai nan ya ro. [I wonder how old she is?]

3 Yoshi: Nan ka na:, 18 sai no toki kara ne:. moo oshietetan ya tte. [Well, I hear that she has
been teaching since she was eighteen.]
4 Ken: Un, itteta na:. Itteta, itteta. Meccha wakaina: [Right. She said that. She said. That's
a very young age.]

5 Mai: Demo, nan ka ano hito no wa igen ga am kara ii wa. SugoL [But that's okay
because her teaching has an air of dignity. Great (dignity).]

6 Yoshi: Un un un. [Yeah, yeah, yeah.]

7 Ken: Soya na. [That's right.] (Yoshino, Ken, Mai's group meeting, November, 2000)

Prior to the interaction in Excerpt 3.1, the three students finished rehearsing their

presentation, and Yoshino, one of the key students to be introduced later in this chapter,

commented that she could imagine how Izzat would react to their speech. Because of this,

the topic of their conversation shifted to Izzat. In Line 1, Ken asks his partners if they

know how old the teacher is, which leads to Yoshino's utterance about Izzat's teaching

experience (Line 3). In the next line, Ken tells the others that he also heard Izzat say that

she started teaching at the age of 18, suggesting that eighteen is a very young age to

become a teacher. In Line 5, Mai comments that the fact that Izzat became a teacher at

such a young age is all right because her teaching has an air of great dignity, to which

82
both Yoshino and Ken agree in their following turns. This exchange seems to show the

students' respect toward Izzat as a teacher.

Excerpt 3.2

1 Kiku: ((reading from the computer screen)) someone =

2 Nana: = more thoughtful de more considerate to others te sa [more thoughtful and more
considerate to others and]

3 Kiku: Un. Kon na hito to kekkon = [Yeah. Marry someone like this.]

4 Nana: = Kon na hito to kekkon shitai na: [I want to marry someone like this.]

5 Kiku: Izzat to shita ra ee. [You should marry Izzat]

6 Nana: A-ha-ha. ((laughs))

7 Shin: Ha-ha-ha-ha. ((laughing)) Honmaya na. [Indeed.] (November 14, 2000)

Excerpt 3.2 comes from a meeting of another group. In this excerpt, Kiku and

Nana, other key participants, are preparing presentation material with their partner

Shingo in Nana's apartment. In Line 4, Nana, appropriating Kiku's utterance in the

previous line, says that she wants to marry someone thoughtful and considerate. Then in

Line 5, Kiku suggests jokingly that she should marry Izzat. Both Shingo and Nana also

seem to share the perception of Izzat as a thoughtful and considerate person.

Mr. Abraham Simons was the teaching assistant for Izzat's classes and in his

first year teaching in the joint program. His major duty as a TA was to teach the seminar

part of the content-based course (Language Fieldwork). At the time of my data collection,

Abraham was in his late twenties and working on his master's thesis in TESOL at WPU.

He had taken a graduate seminar on research in ESL curriculum from Izzat in the

previous year. Abraham is a French-English bilingual certified to teach both languages in

Canadian public schools. After completing his undergraduate studies in linguistics and L2

education at a Canadian university, he taught English and French at a private language

83
school in Tokyo for three years. He was therefore familiar with Japanese culture and

Japanese learners of English. Like Izzat, Abraham never failed to respond to his students'

contributions in a positive manner. He was nice and polite to everyone. His lessons were

always well prepared and well organized. Abraham's cultural familiarity, coupled with

his young age, seemed to help him relate to the Keishin students. He was considered by

many Keishin students to be "kind" and "considerate."

Izzat and Abraham met on a regular basis in the office during their lunch times

and after school to report on their classes, inform each other of their future lesson plans,

and share insights and observations about their students. They respected each other as

language professionals and worked in tandem for the course.

3.3.2 Key Students

Key students for the present study can be categorized into two groups: original

key students who began their participation in the present study when they were studying

at ELI in August, and other students who began their participation in the study after the

academic year started. Like the students in the former group, all students but one in the

latter participated in the intensive university preparation program at ELI, but were in

different classes. Before moving on to the student profiles, brief descriptions of the

student residences will be provided, as students' residential choices seem to provide us

with important information about their personalities and purposes for participating in the

joint program.

3.3.2.1 Student Residences

Keishin students had three residential choices: the Keishin House, Dorm A, and

Dorm B. The Keishin House is a three-story building where the majority of the Keishin

84
students are housed with approximately 100 WPU students each year. In each apartment,

there are four private bedrooms, a shared kitchen and living room, and one and half

bathrooms. During the Academic Year 2000-2001, 51 Keishin students (17 males and 34

females) chose to live in this residence, and all but four were placed in apartments with

three WPU students. In this building, there are three classrooms, a computer lab, an

activity room, a Japanese-style room, laundry facilities, and offices for staff members in

addition to the apartments. This is the newest and quietest of all the three residences.

Dorms A and B are older apartment complexes especially for first and second

year students at WPU that consist of several buildings. All buildings at Dorm A are co-

educational; there are male and female students in the same building with alternating

same-gender floors. In contrast, Dorm B consisted of single-gender buildings and coed

buildings. During Academic Year 2000-2001, 35 Keishin students (4 males and 31

females) chose to live in Dorm A whereas 13 (2 males and 11 females) chose to live in

Dorm B. Each Keishin student was assigned a single room. Each floor had a lounge with

sofas, a TV, and a microwave oven, and shared bathrooms. Thus, Keishin residents living

in these dorms had no roommates; instead they had "floor-mates" with whom they

participated in a variety of activities and events. At the center of each of these two

dormitory complexes lay Commons Block where a cafeteria, an activity room, a weight

room, and a snack bar were located. Since Dorm A was next to the Keishin House, many

residents of the latter often went to the cafeteria of the former for lunch and/or dinner.

Dorm B was an approximately ten-minutes walk from Dorm A and the Keishin House.

At both residences, Keishin students lived in "Quiet Houses" or buildings with extended

quiet hours. But even these buildings were not as quiet as the Keishin House.

85
3.3.2.2 Students' Profiles

Table 3.2 summarizes the key students' profiles. Although all coming from the

same university, these eleven key students vary in fields of studies, interests,

personalities, experiences, and levels of English proficiency. Given the importance of

human agency in learning and socialization as suggested by many scholars, the

information provided in this table would then help contextualize the participants'

activities reported in the following chapters.

86
Table 3.2: Key Students' Profiles
Kiku Nana Otome Tomo
Age 20 19 19 19
University year Sophomore Sophomore Sophomore Sophomore
Sex Male Female Female Male
Major Environmental System Social science American and British Literature Policy Science
Engineering
Initial TOEFL 517 510 533 587
Final TOEFL 543 550 527 567
Meaningful -English Speaking Society -Started to study English at 11 -One-year study-abroad -Conversation school
English learning -Listened to radio programs in -Once a week English lessons: program in New Zealand -Speed reading system in
experience English since grade 9 or 10 movies, folk tales, books KUMON school
-Watched TV programs in -Went to a Japanese high school
English in the U.S.
Oversea experience -10-day trip to the US -Went to a Japanese high school -One-year study-abroad None
-1-month trip to New Zealand in the U.S. program in New Zealand
Future Plan Not yet decided Not yet decided Wanted to become a flight Not yet decided
attendant
Award None None None None
Reasons for "I was expecting I would gain a "When I found the Keishin- "I felt my English ability has "Living in foreign country, and
participating in the certain level of English in terms WPU program, I decided to gotten worse recently, and speaking different
exchange program of writing, reading, and study English again and wanted wanted to improve it in language.. .was good
especially communicating to be a great speaker, because I Canada... Also I found my opportunity for me to get some
(speaking and listening). Also I did not make much effort to university life in Japan quite sympathy, and get to know how
was vaguely expecting myself study English in senior high... I boring and wanted to escape I can make up really good
would be an more flexibly wanted do my best and from it." relationship with people in
understandable person towards challenge to the things that different background. And the
other cultures by being seems to me difficult." other reason was that studying
surrounded by various ethnic in Japanese university was
groups of people and seeing getting boring to me, so I just
different happenings from what wanted to get out!"
I had seen in Japan. So, as a
whole, I was hoping my sense
of value would be changed in a
better way."

87
 Ichiro Koyuki Rei Ringo
Age 20 19 20 20
University year lunior Sophomore Junior Sophomore
Sex Male Female Female Female
Major International Relations Law International Relations Anthropology
Initial T O E F L 543 497 493 483
Final T O E F L 597 533 540 527
Meaningful English -Studied grammar to prepare for -Read English textbooks aloud -Learned English songs and -Went to a private English
learning experience TOEFL before starting his -Making speech gamesfromfriend's mother and conversation school since 1st
studies at WPU her English friend in the grade.
elementary school. -Met a teacher who gave a great
-Watching videos and getting impact.
used to hearing slung used in
them.
Oversea experience -Three-week study in Australia None None None
-One and half weeks home-stay
in Korea
-One and half weeks travel to
the U.S
Future Plan Planned to do MA studies in Not yet decided Not yet decided Not yet decided
North America
Award None Recipient of the Keishin None Recipient of the Keishin
Program Scholarship Program Scholarship
Reasons for "Because thinking about "The best basic reason was that "I really wanted to study "To participate in the exchange
participating in the studying at an English-speaking it had been my dream to study English in countries where program was the last chance for
exchange program graduate school after my abroad for about one year in people speak English. Although me to study abroad with my
graduation from university, I school days. I wanted to many people who they have parents' help. I desired to be
wanted to experience studying improve English skill, to live in never been abroad can speak able to speak English like a
at a foreign institution and somewhere nobody knows me English pretty well, I have native speaker. I strongly
thereby to know whether I can and to become strong." thought that it is another thing wanted to get English skills and
follow courses taught in to learn how English speakers make new friends as many as
English. Hence, participating in think of things in English." possible."
the Keishin-WPU programme
seemed to meet my needs."

88
 Sakura Shinpei Yoshino
Age 21 19 20
University year Junior Sophomore Sophomore
Sex Female Male Female
Major International Relations Studies American and British Literature Social science
Initial T O E F L 480 477 490
Final T O E F L 480 480 497
Meaningful English -Three-week home-stay in the -Participated in an ESL program -Nine-day trip to U.S.
learning experience U.S. at a British university in his -Went to private language
Freshman year. school for five years in
-Traveled to several English elementary school
speaking countries with his
parents
Oversea experience Three-week home-stay Participated in an ESL program None
at a British university in his
Freshman year.
Traveled to several English
speaking countries with his
parents
Future Plan Not yet decided Not yet decided Not yet decided
Award None None None
Reasons for "I do not know exactly why I "I expected to experience actual "Through my music activities, I
participating in the wanted to study abroad. I Canadian life in point of came to search for "my music"
exchange program decided to go to overseas and University and family. I also or "my sound"... People in
study before I entered Keishin expected my English ability Canada are from all over the
University. Originally, I was would be improved through this world. So I thought that I can
interested in study abroad. I programme. But just meet many people who have
thought it will make me more improvement of my English own background and many
flexible person by meeting ability was not prime purpose to music based on many
foreign people." study in Canada for me, but I background. If I know them, I
thought what I would learn in guessed I came to know who I
Canada would be helpful for my am and what my music (sound)
future studying in point of is."
Canadian culture."

89
3.3.3 The Researcher and the Researched: Joint Participants

From a constructivist perspective, Guba and Lincoln (1989; Lincoln, 1990;

Lincoln & Guba, 1985, 1990) maintain that the relationship between the researcher and

the researched be recognized because "it is precisely their interaction that creates the data

that will emerge from the inquiry" (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, p. 88; see also Maxwell,

1996). Likewise, Holliday (2002) suggests that "the dynamics of the researcher's

presence in the research settings, how it affects the research, and what she learns from it"

must be included in a written report (p. 154).

As described above, I was a moderate participant (Spradley, 1980) while

observing students' project related work in and out of the classroom. The following

classroom excerpt in which I was asked to speak illustrates such a role (Masa refers to

Excerpt 3.3
1 Izzat: So we- what we decided to do in Classes 1 and 2 was that - they did something like a
lucky draw. They did uh: number - drawing? ...let's say. Those who got uh -
number one had the first choice. She could go somewhere to say this is when I'm
presenting. Then too bad for the rest of you. And then whoever has No. 2, then go do
that. And that's what - Class 1 did. And Class 2 went - this, ((makes a rock with her
hand.)) Jun- ((looks at the researcher, smiling))

2 Masa: Janken. [Paper-rock-scissors.]

3 Izzat: Janken. Okay. So no matter how you want to do it, you decide when you want to
present - and you decide how to do the choice. Okay? Either you want to choose a
number or you want to do the Janken. Okay, (classroom observation, November 6,
2000)

In my journal entry for this day, I wrote:

Looking back, it's interesting that Izzat asked me, rather than her students, to give her the
Japanese word {janken). This is probably because I had observed two other classes of
hers and Izzat might have thought that I would know what she wanted to say. I guess we
shared a "common ground." I wonder how the students saw that exchange, my role and
identity, my relationship with Izzat, etc. (November 6, 2000)

90
 Furthermore, in early March 2001,1 was asked by Izzat to give a presentation on

my research in her classes. Since my data collection was still continuing, Izzat and I

decided that it might be best to focus on the rationale for and methodology of the study.

One week before my presentation, Izzat informed her students that she had asked me to

do a presentation, giving two major reasons. Firstly, she thought that her students might

want to know more about my study as it was about them. The second reason had to do

with modeling of the task. As we will see in Chapter 4, Izzat asked her TA Abraham to

give a model presentation in October 2000. But since some of the students in her

Semester 2 classes studied with another teacher during Semester 1, they did not see

Abraham's modeling of the task. Therefore, Izzat wanted to provide a model especially

for these students.

These episodes suggest that my role as a researcher both shaped and was shaped

by the ecology of the research site (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Mehra, 2001). Nonetheless, in

class and group meetings, I kept my role peripheral most of the time (Adler & Adler,

1987). But I participated more actively in social events including lunch times, class

parties, students' birthday parties, academic orientations, and the graduation ceremonies

for the ELI program and Keishin program. Also, I was invited to several sport events in

which Keishin students and their WPU friends participated.

In addition to the roles of observer, participant, and interviewer discussed above, I

played various roles in the field to give back to the community. Spradley (1980) states

that personal gains become exploitative when the participants gain nothing from the

research, and argues that every researcher has a responsibility to think carefully what

might constitute a "fair return" to participants. From my conversations with the key

91
students as well as with several students from the previous group, I learned that one of

the things Keishin students might appreciate was Japanese food. I thus threw several

dinner parties for the key students over the year. Also, I invited the key students and their

partners to have dinner at my place after their interviews. This was not only because I

wanted to do something in return for their cooperation, but also because they often

missed their dinner times at their residences by volunteering to attend the interviews.

Here, it should be noted that since not all key participants knew each other, by throwing

parties, I might have created opportunities for them to become acquainted. Additionally, I

occasionally brought sashiire, or snacks, to students' group meetings so that they could

eat during breaks.

Moreover, upon the request from the head teacher of the Keishin program, I

agreed to offer a series of weekly, lunch-hour workshops on English communication

during the first semester. Each year, some of the Keishin faculty members offer lunch-

hour workshops on various topics during the first semester. For example, Izzat offered

workshops on the Chinese language in the previous year. Twenty-three students,"

including most of the key participants (i.e., Kiku, Ichiro, Otome, Rei, Ringo, Sakura,

Shinpei, and Yoshino), chose to take my workshops. Given the purpose of the workshop,

we spent most of the time in small groups doing communicative tasks, such as story

retelling and discussion. However, we devoted our last meeting to TOEFL preparation

upon the request of the students, all of whom were required to take the test in the

following week. Thus my role in these workshops was that of a facilitator, rather than

that of a lecturer, except for the last meeting.

92
 In addition to their use of Japanese in interactions with me, for a variety of

affective and practical reasons, I learned from my initial observations that Japanese was

the major medium for communication among the Keishin students both inside and

outside of classes. This observation suggested that using Japanese, more specifically the

informal register, would be a crucial condition for me to be accepted into the student

community (Gumperz, 1982; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993). Sharing the same mother

tongue was indeed very helpful in getting familiar with the Keishin students (Block

(2000) also found use of LI increased rapport and students' self-esteem). Of course, the

use of Japanese entailed disadvantages too. For one thing, Japanese interview data had to

be translated into English. I was aware that this would add extra layers of interpretation.

In contrast, I made every effort to use English in class time or in the presence of non-

Japanese speakers.

Being a Japanese student studying at a Canadian university helped me to relate to

the students of the Keishin program as an insider. Also, all the three teachers in the

present study, Izzat, Abraham, and Jamal, were L2 researchers themselves. Belonging to

the same community of practice or discourse community, as it were, I was an insider to

them as well. Izzat, for example often used first person plural pronouns (we, our, us) to

include me when talking about language learning and teaching as in this example:

Excerpt 3.4

And Masaki and I know that there's something called silent period. When they don't
speak English that does not mean that they don't- they are not learning English. They are
learning it. They are taking it in. They are thinking about it. They can understand but
when they're ready they will start speaking English. So when they're forced to speak
before they're ready, that really is not a good idea. (Class 2, November 9, 2000)

Here, I am constructed as a colleague of the teacher's through the coordination of my

name and the first person singular pronoun (i.e., Masaki and I).

93
 Moreover, the fact that I was ten years older than most of the students seemed to

have shaped my relationships with them. A number of scholars (e.g., Fukue, 1991;

Nakane, 1970) have suggested that Japanese people see themselves in light of three

categories: senpai (seniors), koohai (juniors), and dooryo (colleagues). According to

Nakane (1970), age differences, year of entry into institutions, or year of graduation from

school, may result in a sense of koohai and senpai even among dooryo. In this light, I was

perceived by many of the Keishin students to be their senpai, which was, in turn,

reflected in students' use of the suffix san—a suffix that one would use when speaking to

one's senior (see Fukue, 1991; Nakane, 1970) in Japanese—in addressing me, as in

"Masaki-san." Interestingly, however, many students gradually started to use casual

register to speak to me while continuing to use the polite san-suffix.

At the same time, I was an outsider to the students in three primary ways. First, I

had never studied abroad as an undergraduate student although I had done shorter home-

stays and graduate studies in North America and, in fact, in my research journal I mused,

"I wonder what it's like to study an an international undergraduate student" (Journal,

August 31, 2000).

Secondly, I was not living in a dormitory, nor had I lived in a dormitory before.

One of the students from the ELI class said jokingly to me, "you should live in a noisy

apartment building like Dorm A if you want to become one of us" (Fieldnotes, September

9, 2000). Thirdly, my Japanese was different from those of many of the Keishin students

(i.e., variations of the Western Dialect). While I was from Eastern Japan, the majority of

the Keishin students were from Western Japan, although this difference did not seem to

hinder me from building conformable relationships with my participants.

94
 In sum, I was an insider and outsider to the Keishin students. Interestingly, in

March, I was asked by the student-members of the Yearbook editorial team to produce

two pages: one to be included in the student section and the other to be included in the

faculty section. This seems to reflect Keishin students' perceptions of the dual roles that I

played as a researcher in the field.

3.4 Data Collection

Data include over 350 hours of classroom and non-classroom observations of

project-related work, in-depth, semi-structured interviews with students and teachers,

audio- and video-recordings of their interactions, audio-journals kept by key students, e-

mail interviews with students, the researcher'sfieldnotes and reflective journals, and a

collection of relevant documents such as course outlines, class handouts, and students'

written journals, term papers, and notes. These data were triangulated to strengthen the

trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1998) of the present study. In what

follows, I will describe each data collection procedure in more detail.

3.4.1 Observations

One major source of data for the present study was observations. Before

describing the procedure for this method, a few details should be provided about the

structure of the content course. Like some other Keishin courses, Language Fieldwork

consisted of one 90-minute lecture, one 90-minute-seminar, and one 90-minute laboratory

session per week, which were intended to complement and reinforce one another. As a

rule, lectures and lab sessions were taught by the course instructor whereas the seminar

was taught by the TA. During thefirstsemester, most of the lab time was allocated for

students' volunteer work and oral presentations. For the second semester, the lecture and

95
seminar were integrated into a three-hour lesson, and Abraham became responsible for

the lab sessions.

There was a time conflict between Izzat's lessons and Abraham's seminars, which

prevented me from observing all of the lessons taught by both teachers, thus forcing me

to make a sampling decision. After learning from Izzat that most project-related work

would take place in her lessons, I decided to focus on these for my observation.

Throughout the academic year, I observed all of her lessons and some of Abraham's that

my key students were taking. 1 also observed and audio- and video-recorded my key
28

participants and their partners as they prepared for their group presentations outside the

classroom. To determine which out-of-class activities to observe, I asked the key

29

participants to advise me throughout the research period. Thus, each time they decided to

meet with their partners, my key participants would contact me to inform me of their

schedules. When one meeting conflicted with another, I asked both groups what they

were planning to do at these meetings, and decided which meeting to observe. I would

then ask the other group to audio-record their session, issuing a Walkman-type portable

tape-recorder and several blank cassettes.

I placed tape-recorders around the room to collect the discourse of the students

and teacher, or the discourse of students themselves. More specifically, I placed desktop

tape-recorders in the front and back of the classroom to collect whole class discussions

and portable tape-recorders close to all of the key students to collect their individual

In the first semester, I observed all three of Izzat's classes. In the second semester, since none of the key
participants registered for Class 2,1 focused on Classes 1 and 3.
29
Also, I observed the students as they worked together in the second semester to write their research
reports. However, to examine this writing activity is beyond the scope of the present dissertation. I will
therefore focus on the oral presentations.

96
utterances and small group discussions. Key students were asked to keep the tape-

recorders close to them when working in small groups.

In the second semester, in order to capture their nonverbal expressions and use of

notes and transparencies, I video-recorded students' presentations and key students'

30

out-of-class group work in consultation with my participants, including the instructor, as

well as the key students and their partners themselves. As many researchers (Erickson,

1992; Goldman-Segall, 1992; Kvale, 1996; Saville-Troike, 2003) suggest, video data can

never be objective and complete records of what transpired in the field because it is the

researcher who makes decisions about what to record and how to record it. In the present

study, two video cameras were used in the classroom; one was fixed on a tripod in the

back to capture the frontal view of the presenters' actions while the other, which was on a

tripod usually on the left side of the room, was moved side to side to capture the

audience's reactions.

During the observations, I took fieldnotes to help better understand and interpret

the recorded discourse, using Hymes' (1972) SPEAKING grid as an observation guide.

This grid, according to Schiffrin (1994), was developed to helpfind"what counts" as

communicative events; each letter represents a different component of communication:

setting (scene), participants (e.g., speaker, listener, presenter, audience), ends (purpose,

goals, outcomes), act sequence (message form and content), key (tone, mood, or spirit),

instrumentalities (channels of communication such as oral or written), norms of

interaction, and genre (type of event) (Hymes, 1972; Saville-Troike, 2003; Schiffrin,

1994; Scollon & Scollon, 2001). In making notes, I made notes of participants' utterances

(Glesne, 1999; Merriam, 1998; Spradley, 1980). Quotation marks were used whenever a
30
I did not use video-recording in thefirstsemester to respect the Head Teacher's concern.

97
verbatim record was made (Merriam, 1998). In addition, I took notes of information or

contextual details, including visual information and observer comments (Bloom, 1993;

Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Merriam, 1998), which could not be captured by the tape-

recorders. My observer comments were always written in Japanese and placed in

parentheses to distinguish from my descriptions of observed events. Using the tape

counter of the desktop recorder placed in the back, like Schieffelin (1990), I recorded the

tape position corresponding to each piece of contextual information which I chose to

record so that exact location of such information could be known later in transcribing

data.

During these observations, I quietly watched and listened to participants'

interactions in and out of the classroom. I moved around the room with the permission of

the teacher while observing classroom activities and with the permission of the students

while observing activities in other settings. I did not participate in activities in either

situation unless I was invited to do so. Thus, the default role of the researcher in these

settings was moderate participant (Spradley, 1980) or peripheral member (Adler &

Adler, 1987; see also Palys, 1997). After each observation, I spent time working on my

fieldnotes with the understanding that this strategy would help visualize the event, the

actors, and the context long after the observation (Glesne, 1999; Merriam, 1998).

3.4.2 Interviews and Conversations with Students

Another major source of data was interviews and casual conversations with key

participants and their partners. I formally interviewed the key students who were

observed in the ELI program five times and the other key participants four times during

the research period. Non-key students who worked with any of the key students on group

98
projects were interviewed as well. I tried to conduct the interviews as early as possible,

usually within a week after each presentation, so as to ask the participants questions

while their memories about the event were still fresh. At the first interview, students were

asked which language they would like to speak for the interview (Rossman & Rallis,

1998), English or Japanese. They all preferred to speak Japanese. Thus, all face-to-face

interviews were conducted in Japanese. Initially, I tried to take notes while listening to

the students but I soon realized that my note-taking seemed to divert students' attention. I

therefore decided to refrain from taking any notes during the interview and instead wrote

detailed notes after each interview.

At these meetings, the students were first asked to review their audio- or video-

recorded presentations and share with me what was going on in their mind while doing

the presentations. The major purpose of this playback session was to gain participants'

emic perspectives on their actions and interactions during the presentations (Saville-

Troike, 2003), thereby triangulating perspectives (Green, Dixon, & Zaharlick, 2003;

Green & Wallat, 1981; Scollon & Scollon, 2001). As in Morita's (2000) study, these

sessions were instrumental in showing the convergences and divergences between

students' interpretations of the presentation and my interpretations of the same event. The

playback session was then followed by semi-structured interviews (Merriam, 1998).

Following Patton (1990), I prepared an interview guide before conducting a new set of

interviews (e.g., interviews for Task 1, interviews for Task 2) by sketching out a set of

issues and possible questions to be explored. This guide was intended simply as a

checklist during the interview to ensure that all relevant topics were dealt with and the

actual wording and order of questions were modified in the context of the actual

99
interview (Patton, 1990). The interviews lasted approximately one-and-half hours to two

hours depending on the participants' schedule and wishes.

Students were asked, for example, to describe how they prepared for their

presentations and to comment on their classmates' task performance and their own, and

their teachers' intentions for assigning the particular task (see Appendix D for sample

questions). Other questions that were asked during the interview were dependent on

participants' responses. At the first interview, key students were asked about their
31

backgrounds and reasons for participating in the joint grogram.

In order to ensure a careful and thorough analysis of data, all interviews were

audio-recorded with the permission of the students. Usually, key students and their

partners were interviewed together in my living room although some were interviewed

separately. Regardless, I also asked students separately if there were any issues that they

could not talk about at the interview in their classmates' presence. Moreover, I often

asked key students and their partners questions while they were taking breaks during their

group meetings. These on-the-spot interviews, also audio-recorded, were helpful in

getting students' immediate reflections on their discourse.

Additionally, from time to time, I also communicated informally with students

about their studies, family and friends, etc. These informal interviews and casual
* 32
conversations, usually not audio-recorded but recorded in my fieldnotes, not only

31
The six Keishin students who studied with Jamal at ELI (including the two students who did not take
Izzat's class in the fall) were first interviewed in August, while the other key students were first
interviewed in early October.
32
Wolcott (1999) states that he placed casual conversations at the top of his list for a variety of interview
approaches "to underscore its importance not as a source of information, but in recognition of the everyday
nature of fieldwork itself (p. 52).

100
provided me with valuable information about my participants' learning and socialization,

but also helped me get to know them as people and build rapport with them.

3.4.3 Interviews and Conversations with Teachers

I conducted semi-structured interviews of approximately one hour to two hours

with teachers. I interviewed Jamal, the ELI instructor, once toward the end of the

university preparation program in August and asked him follow-up questions by e-mail

after the program when he was no longer in town. Also, I interviewed the two Keishin

program teachers, Izzat and Abraham. Izzat, the instructor, was interviewed twice a

semester whereas her TA, Abraham, was interviewed once a semester. To examine their

potentially important roles as major socializing agents in Keishin students' academic

discourse socialization, I asked the teachers questions, for instance, about their intentions

in assigning particular tasks, their expectations regarding task performance, their

assistance with student tasks, and their teaching philosophies (see Appendix E for sample

questions).

Furthermore, I often asked the Keishin teachers questions more informally about

their teaching and students' task performance during our lunch breaks and after school.

At the end of each student presentation day, I asked Izzat questions about the students'

task performance in her office. These sessions helped me gain her perceptions of

students' task performance, which were more immediate than those gained through

interviews scheduled for later occasions.

3.4.4 Audio-Journals by Key Students

Key students were asked to keep audio-journals. Like the participants in Block's

(1996) study, each key student in the present study was provided with guidelines

101
(Appendix F) as well as with a micro-cassette recorder and blank cassettes. The

students all chose to record themselves primarily in Japanese.

Audio-journals were intended as on-going reports on their project work that took

place in my absence or at off-campus locations, such as travel agencies and senior

citizens' centers where they volunteered, because I was not permitted or able to observe

them there. We all agreed that audio-journals would be less demanding and time-

consuming for them than written journals.

Students were also asked to record their thoughts and feelings about project-

related classroom events such as model presentations. However, the idea of audio-

recording oneself with no immediate feedback from one's audience seemed to be a

weakness of this method (see Campbell, 1996).

3.4.5 E-mail Interviews with Students

The e-mail interviewing (Fontana & Frey, 2000) employed in the present study

allowed me to find out how non-key students prepared for their presentations. I e-mailed

several questions (Appendix D) to all the non-key participants enrolled in Izzat's courses

after each presentation task within the academic exchange program, resulting in three sets

of responses. Another purpose of this e-mail interviewing was to gain non-key

participants' perspectives on their classmates' presentations including the key

participants'. For this, all the students enrolled in Izzat's course during the second

semester were asked after each of the three days allocated for student presentations what

they thought of the presentations they observed that day, including their own. Again, they

normally used Japanese, although in afinalround of e-mail with them after they had

33
Students used this tape-recorder to record their individual practicing of the oral presentation and group
meetings that 1 could not attend either because I was observing another group meeting or because they took
place unexpectedly.

102
returned to Japan, I asked them to use English so I could quote them verbatim in their

own voice.

3.4.6 Collection of Relevant Documents

Written materials were another important source of data for the present study.

Collected documents fell into three major categories. The first category was institutional

documents of the ELI and Keishin Programs such as program guides and pamphlets as

well as handouts distributed during the orientation meetings. These materials included the

descriptions and explicit mission statements of the programs. Secondly, I collected

teacher-produced documents including course syllabuses and class handouts. Course

syllabuses included descriptions of major assignments (tasks) and expected task

performance. Thirdly, student products, such as final papers, field journals, class and

meeting notes, and presentation materials, were solicited at each interview. These

materials were returned to students after they were photocopied with their permission.

Again with their permissions, their individual pages in the student profile booklet were

also photocopied and consulted and larger products such as posters were photographed.

Key students also sent me their papers, journals, presentation materials, and electronic

correspondence with their partners. All the Keishin program students were required to

take the Institutional Testing Program (ITP) TOEFL (old forms of TOEFL) four times-

once in Japan and three times in Canada-as part of their studies in the exchange program,

so these scores were also collected.

103
3.5 Data Analysis

3.5.1. Data Analysis Procedure

As is often the case with qualitative approaches to research (Davis, 1995, Glesne,

1999; Johnson, 1992; LeCompte & Preissle, 1993; Marshall & Rossman, 1999; Merriam,

1998; Miles & Huberman, 1994), data analysis was an iterative process that took place in

parallel with data collection. Transcription of audio-recorded discourse began as it

became available. Data, including fieldnotes, interview transcripts, students' audio-

journals, and audio-recordings of classroom and non-classroom interactions, were

reviewed as they were gathered. As I read and reread my fieldnotes and listened to the

audio-recordings, I took notes of recurrent themes, which were then copied onto index

cards. I prepared two sets of available transcripts. I used one of these sets to do further

reading of the data and the other to analyze the data using the constant comparative

method (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). I then read and marked the transcripts to unitize the

data. Once units were identified, transcripts were cut into pieces accordingly. By

constantly comparing these units and the above-mentioned notes on the discourse data, I

constructed tentative categories and subcategories pertaining to students' oral

presentations. This was followed by further data collection and analysis, which often

resulted in revision of the constructed categories and subcategories.

More transcription and detailed analysis followed once all data were collected. All

of the observed presentations (41 student presentations, 3 teacher presentations, and 25

poster sessions) were transcribed adapting the conventions presented by Duff (1995,

2000, see Appendix G). To strengthen the accuracy of the transcription, the key students

and their partners were subsequently asked to verify the transcripts of their presentations.

104
All of the recorded interactions that key students had with their partners while preparing

for their Semester 1 presentations were also transcribed. Japanese utterances were

romanized following the conventions presented by Minami (1995). All interviews with

the teachers, students, and their partners, as well as key students' audio-journal entries,

were transcribed as well. Again, these transcripts were analyzed using the constant

comparative method (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). These analysis processes generated

questions that needed to be asked of the participants.

Further data analysis took place in the process of writing this dissertation. In fact,

a number of qualitative researchers have expressed the view of writing as integral to data

analysis (Lofland & Lofland, 1995; Marshall & Rossman, 1999; Merriam, 1998; Miles &

Huberman, 1994; Rossman & Rallis, 1998). For example, Rossman and her colleagues

(Marshall & Rossman, 1999; Rossman & Rallis, 1998) state that writing about qualitative

data is inseparable from the analytic process because "in the choice of particular words to

summarize and reflect the complexity of the data, the researcher is engaging in the

interpretive act, lending shape and form—meaning—to massive amounts of raw data"

(Rossman & Rallis, 1998, p. 182). Likewise, Dey (1993) states,

Producing an account is not just a question of reporting results; it is also another

method of producing these results. Through the challenge of explaining ourselves
to others, we can help to clarify and integrate the concepts and relationships we
have identified in our analysis, (p. 237)

Acknowledging this analytic and interpretive nature of writing, I asked my key

participants to comment on my written representations of their realities in order to

strengthen the trustworthiness of the dissertation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

105
3.5.2 Ethnography of Communication

Like other language socialization studies (e.g., Duff, 1995, 2002b; Morita, 2000;

Poole, 1990; 1994; see also Watson-Gegeo, 1988), the present study examined one type

of activity or speech event (Hymes, 1972; A. N. Leont'ev, 1981; Levinson, 1979; Ochs,

1988; Rivera & Tharp, 2004; Rogoff, 1993) using the discourse analytic tools of the

ethnography of communication (e.g., Hymes, 1972; Saville-Troike, 2003; Scollon &

Scollon, 2001). According to Schiffrin (1994), the ethnography of communication

concerns itself with "holistic explanations of meaning and behavior, i.e., explanations

that locate particular behaviors (including, but not limited to, utterances) in a wider

framework of beliefs, actions, and norms" (p. 140). Central to this approach to discourse

is speech events or activities that are directly regulated by cultural rules for the use of

speech (Hymes, 1972). As Hymes puts it,

the speech event is to the analysis of verbal interaction what the sentence is to
grammar. When compared with the sentence it represents an extension in size of
the basic analytical unit from single utterances to stretches of utterances, as well
as a shift in focus from emphasis on texts to emphasis on interaction. Speech
event analysis focuses on the exchange between speakers, i.e., how a speaker by
his choice of topic and his choice of linguistic variables adapts to other
participants or his environment and how others in turn react to him. (p. 17)

Like many other researchers working within sociocultural traditions (e.g., A. N.

Leont'ev, 1981; Ochs, 1988; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; van Lier, 1988), Duff (1995)

views an event or activity as "a way of framing culturally organized behavior in order to

consider what is being done, how it is being done, and what it entails and signifies" (p.

513), suggesting that focusing upon activities help reconstruct well-bounded discursive

events and permits comparisons across contexts (see also Heath, 1983). The oral

presentation is the major unit of analysis for the current study.

106
3.5.3 Analysis of Contingency and Intertextuality

Informed by Vygotsky's theory of learning and development, van Lier (1992,

1996, 1998a) argues that contingency can be viewed as "the essential ingredient making

the transformation of social processing into cognitive processing possible" (van Lier,

1992, p. 104). Following this argument, students' task-related discourse was analyzed for

contingency. According to van Lier (1992), contingency can be "provisionally—and

incompletely—defined as ways of displaying attentiveness towards other turns'" (p. 98).

Van Lier (1996) states that contingency has two features that appear to contradict with

each other: dependency and uncertainty:

Contingency is what gives language first an element of surprise, then

allows us to connect utterance to utterance, text to context, word to world.
The conditions for a contingent language act are set by alluding to the
familiar, the given, the shared, then joint interpretive work is undertaken
which simultaneously connects the new to what is known, and sets up
expectations for what is to happen next. (pp. 171-172)

As such, contingency can be created through the use of various social and

linguistic resources, which fall into three major types: proactive, concurrent, and reactive

(van Lier, 1998a). Proactive resources are used for planning discourse on the part of the

speaker and for predicting what is coming next on the part of the listener; concurrent

resources are defined by van Lier as signals that interactants make during their own turn

or their interlocutors' turns; and reactive resources help to summarize, rephrase, and wrap

up points being made. Therefore, I also examined students' task-related discourse for

these features.

Moreover, as Bloom and Bailey (1992) suggest, any language event (i.e., both

oral and literate, Barton, 1994) is based upon ties with other related texts and events as

well as a history of previous events. To address this link between in-time and over-time

107
relationships, students' discourse in task-related events was analyzed for intertextuality

(Bloome & Bailey, 1992; Bloome & Egan-Roberson, 1993; Kristeva, 1986; see also

Halliday & Hasan, 1985; Maybin, 2003; Philips & Jorgensen, 2002; Putney et al., 2000;

Wink & Putney, 2002). This concept is closely related to the work of Bakhtin (Maybin,

2003). Recall that from a sociocultural perspective informed by his theory, language

learning is seen as a process of learning to ventriloquate through voices of a social

community (Wertsch, Tulviste, & Hagstrom, 1993). In this light, language learning is

regarded as an essentially intertextual activity.

Influenced by the work of Bakhtin, Kristeva (1986) explains the concept of

intertextuality as follows: "Any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is

the absorption and transformation of another" (p. 37). More recently, Bloom and Bailey

(1992) define the term as socially constructed juxtapositions of various oral and written

texts and socially constructed links between past, present, and future texts that are

recognized by participants. As Philips and Jorgensen (2002) state, "One cannot avoid

using words and phrases that others have used before" (p. 73).

According to Putney et al. (2000), researchers can identify what counts as socially

significant in a community by examining "what actions members take up, what they

referentially propose and acknowledge, how they take up, and build on what is proposed

within an unfolding event" (p. 92). Moreover, they suggest that it is also possible to

identify, through explorations of the intertextual ties across contexts, what participants

bring from earlier events and how their participation in those events is of social relevance

and significance. Like Putney et al. (2000), I examined the classroom and non-classroom

discourse of key students and their interlocutors by moving back and forth in time across

108
task-related events. In this process of data analysis, I noted students' uses of intertextual

referencing including quotation, reported speech and thoughts, and imitation (Maybin,

2003), as well as deixis that made reference to discourse and actions in earlier events

(e.g., their speech, that presentation). I also applied a SFL analysis of some excerpts,

drawing on Mohan (1986, 1990), Halliday (1994a), and related work.

3.6 Trustworthiness of the Study

Regardless of their theoretical/philosophical orientations, all researchers must

deal with trustworthiness or the questions of reliability and validity (Lincoln & Guba,

1985; Merriam, 1998). According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), trustworthiness concerns

the following questions: "How can an inquirer persuade his or her audience (including

self) that the findings of an inquiry are worth paying attention to, worth taking account

of?" (p. 290). In the rest of the present study, I use the trustworthiness criteria discussed

by Lincoln and Guba (1985), that is, credibility, dependability, transferability, and

confirmability, rather than the conventional criteria, internal validity, reliability,

generalizability, and objectivity, respectively.

According to Faltis (1997), the hallmark of a well-conducted case study is internal

validity (credibility), without which not only are findings presented and conclusions

drawn by the researcher questionable, but reliability (dependability) also is negatively

affected. In the present study, several techniques were used to address the question of

credibility, a major criterion for trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The first

technique was prolonged engagement, which according to Lincoln and Guba (1985) helps

to accomplish several purposes: "learning the 'culture,' testing for misinformation

introduced by distortions either of the self or the respondents, and building trust" (p.

109
301). Like other ethnographic researchers, I spent a great amount of time with

participants to learn the culture(s) of their exchange program, test the accuracy of the

collected information, and develop trust and rapport with them and others involved in the

exchange program. Here, the issue of participants' reactivity or the observer's paradox

(Labov, 1972) needs to be addressed as well. According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), the

mere fact of being a "stranger in a strange land" (p. 302) attracts unnecessary attention to

the researcher, with its concomitant overreaction and that it is unlikely that unless the

researcher started out as an accepted member of the group being studied, distortion can

be overcome. However, Allwright and Bailey (1991) suggest that reactivity can be

reduced—but never erased—if the researcher pays repeated visits to the research site and

familiarizes participants with tape- and video-recorders. Likewise, Glesne (1999)

suggests that researchers carry a notebook all the time and make it known to participants

that they will write in their notebooks. These suggestions were adopted in the present

study.

Secondly, my interpretations, translations, and conclusions were tested with key

participants and their partners during and after the study. As Lincoln and Guba (1985) put

it, if the researcher is to be able to argue that "his or her reconstructions are recognizable

to audience members as adequate representations of their own (and multiple) realities, it

is essential that they be given the opportunity to react to them" (p. 314). Member checks

were thus conducted during and after the study and I asked my key students and teachers

to comment on my interpretations. Additionally, I had the opportunity to present some of

my findings to a new group of Keishin students taking Abraham's course in the fall of

110
2002. Many of these students commented that my key participants' experiences with the

oral presentation task resonated with their own.

A third technique employed to increase the credibility of the present research was

triangulation (Denzin, 1970; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1998; van Lier, 1988;
34

Yin, 1994). As we have seen, different kinds of data were collected from different people

involved in the study at different places by utilizing different methods and research tools

(see Figure 3.1). In other words, multiple methods for data collection, multiple sources
35

of data, multiple research settings, and multiple viewpoints were triangulated in the

study. Triangulation is based on the belief that "at lease two perspectives are necessary if

an accurate picture of a particular phenomenon is to be obtained" (Allwright & Bailey,

1991, p. 73). The idea is that if different kinds of data lead to the same conclusion, we

can have a little more confidence in that conclusion (Allwright & Bailey, 1991;

Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995). However, as Mathison (1988) points out, triangulation

may not necessarily yield data that are consistent. Thus, in the present study, triangulation

is seen not as a technical panacea for ensuring validity, but rather as a strategy that helps

to develop a holistic understanding of the phenomena being investigated and to construct

credible explanations about them (Mathison, 1988).

J4
Denzin (1970) describes four types of triangulation: data triangulation, theoretical triangulation,
methodological triangulation, and investigator triangulation.
35
Holliday (2002) presents a similar figure based on his data. However, I owe the development of Figure
3.1 to conversations with my father, Matsuo Kobayashi, who for more than 40 years has been a surveyor
(the field from which triangulation originates from, as noted by Bailey & Nunan, 1996; Cohen, Manion, &
Morrison, 2000; Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995).

Ill
Figure 3.1: Triangulation

I Method

Interview

Audio-journal Observation

Audio-/video- Collection of relevant

recordings written documents

II Data Source

Discourse Class handout

transcripts/Logs

Field notes Interview transcripts

Audio-journal Student written

Transcripts products

III Views

Teachers Researcher

Key Non-key
students students

IV Settings

Lecture Lab

Seminar Group meetings

112
 The techniques discussed above—triangulation and member checks—help enhance

the reliability of a qualitative case study. While reliability in the traditional sense

concerns the notion of replicability, dependability or "consistency" in the constructivist

sense (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) concerns whether the findings of a study are consistent

with the data collected (Merriam, 1998). According to Edge and Richards (1998),

dependability is a matter of "taking care that the inevitable changes in the situation being

investigated, in the participants, and in the emergent design of the research itself are

properly documented, so that the decisions made and the conclusions reached are

justifiable in their own contexts" (p. 345). Thus, this dissertation articulates the

theoretical perspectives through which the data were filtered, and provides an audit trail

or a detailed description of the procedures for data collection and analysis, and decision-

making processes involved so that readers can trace the logic of inquiry (Gee & Green,

1998) and reconstruct the study in their minds (Gillham, 2000; Lincoln & Guba, 1985;

Merriam, 1998). This is also taken as a strategy to address the question of confirmability,

or a matter of "providing evidence which confirms the presence of the data according to

the perspective, standpoint, or value system espoused by the researcher" (Edge &

Richards, 1998, p. 345).

Finally, a few remarks should be made concerning transferability. Lincoln and

Guba (1985) state that unlike the traditional notion of generalizability (see, for example,

Brown, 1988; Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991; Johnson, 1993), transferability depends upon the

similarity between sending and receiving contexts and that transferability inferences

cannot be made by a researcher who is only familiar with the sending context. Therefore,

the researcher's job is to accumulate and present empirical evidence about contextual

113
similarity or to provide a detailed description of the sending context so that readers can

assess the applicability of the research conclusions to other situations (Faltis, 1997;

Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In other words, enough detailed description of the study's

context must be presented that will allow readers to examine if an "inferential bridge" can

be built between the present cases and other cases of interest to them (Shulman, 1988).

This is one major goal of the present study.

3.7 Ethical Considerations

Every social researcher has ethical responsibilities. Marshall and Rossman (1999)

state that the hallmark of a successful qualitative researcher is being exquisitely sensitive

to the ethical issues present in engaging in any moral act. Participants were all informed

of their rights to refuse to participate and to withdraw from this study at any time without

consequences. Because of the intensive nature of the study, especially for key students

and their partners (i.e., being observed and recorded both in and out of class time), it was

vital for me to be sensitive to my participants' voices and respect their privacy. As

Spradley (1980) says, participants as human beings have their problems, concerns, and

interests, and thus there will always be conflicting values. At the onset of the study,

participants were informed that if they had any questions about the research anytime

during the course of the study, I would make myself available to listen and talk to them.

Throughout the study, I availed myself after each observation and encouraged students to

share any concerns they might have. Moreover, I always consulted my key participants

before changing any plans for my data collection, with the decision to use video-

recordings in the second semester being one such example. Not only was this kind of

consultation important ethically, but it also helped establish trust and maintain it.

114
3.8 Summary of the Chapter

To summarize, this study employs an ethnographic case study approach. Although

case study, like ethnography, aims to understand the phenomena under investigation in

terms of the meanings that individuals bring to them, it does not necessarily seek to

understand them in terms of cultural attitudes, beliefs, and values that both shape and are

shaped by people's actions (Nunan, 1992). On the other hand, ethnographic research is

generally concerned with large groups or communities. Given that the purpose of the

present study is to examine individual students' language socialization into an L2

academic community over time, it is vital to integrate a case study approach with an

ethnographic approach.

The research sites and participants for the present study were purposefully

selected to develop a holistic understanding of students' learning and socialization

through project work. For instance, the Language Fieldwork course was selected because

it was a project-based content course taught by a respected teacher with years of teaching

experience. To strengthen the trustworthiness of the findings, eleven students

representing a wide range of academic departments at Keishin University were invited to

participate as key students. Data were collected over the entire academic year from

different participants at different places using a variety of methods. As is typical of

qualitative approaches, the present study went through a recursive cycle of collecting and

analyzing data, generating and testing hypotheses, and making decisions about farther

data collection (van Lier, 1990). In other words, data gathering took place in tandem with

data analysis (see Figure 3.2). Recorded interactions were transcribed and analyzed using

the discourse analytic tools of the ethnography of communication. The results of this

115
analysis was linked with themes that emerged from other data through constant

comparison. Triangulation, long-term involvement in thefield,and member checking

were all strategies utilized to yield credible findings.

Figure 3.2: Recursive Cycle of Data Collection and Analysis

Data
Collection

observation documents &

interviews products , , , •
* member-checking

journal writing constant

draft
comparison U 1 C U L

transcription writing
transcript reading
Data
Analysis

Adapted from Butler (2000)

116
 Chapter 4

COMMUNITY CONTEXT OF TASKS

4.0 Introduction

According to Kohonen (2001), "School is not just preparation for the life to come;

it is also a community in its own right, with a specific culture. Learners practice living in

community through the ways in which the teachers structure their learning experiences"

(p. 20). Likewise, Legutke and Thomas (1991) state that each classroom is a "unique

social environment with its own human activities and its own conventions governing

these activities" (p. 2). From a sociocultural perspective, it is vital to examine what

competent membership of and participation in the classroom entails (van Lier, 1988).

Viewing the classroom as a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger,

1998), I will focus in this chapter on the community and institutional aspects of the task

environment, including the culturally defined purposes of the oral presentation tasks,

teacher expectations regarding this academic task, constraints on and resources for the

task, and the roles of the teachers as socializing agents (Rogoff, 1995, 1998, 2003; Wells,

1999a).

4.1 The WPU-Keishin Joint Program

Before describing the classroom culture of Izzat's Language Fieldwork course, a

few details should be provided about the WPU-Keishin Joint Program. The purpose of

this academic exchange program was to help participants develop intercultural

understanding through their participation in a residential program that integrates

academic, sociocultural, and linguistic studies. To quote its 2000-2001 guidebook, the

WPU-Keishin program aimed to promote students' "learning through academic studies,

117
everyday life, and cultural exchange" (original in Japanese). Central to this joint program

were integrated courses designed especially for Keishin students, including two

mainstream arts study courses (e.g., cross-cultural psychology, geography) and two

sheltered content-based ESL courses, such as Language Fieldwork and Language across

the Curriculum. The arts studies courses were offered in the second semester whereas the

content-based ESL courses were offered throughout the year. As such, thefirsthalves of

the two content-based ESL courses (e.g., Language Fieldwork A and Language across the

Curriculum A), coupled with an introductory course on Canadian studies also offered in

thefirstsemester, were designed to help students prepare for the Semester 2 courses,

including the required arts studies and/or other regular courses they might wish to take as

electives.

4.2 Classroom Culture of the Language Fieldwork Course

In what follows, I will describe the classroom culture of Izzat's content-based

ESL course, Language Fieldwork, which consisted of two half courses, Language

Fieldwork A and B.

4.2.1 Course Objectives

During Academic Year 2000-2001, Language Fieldwork A, offered during the

first semester, dealt with intercultural communication whereas Language Fieldwork B,

offered during the second semester, dealt with research methods in social science and

education. The required textbook for Language Fieldwork A was Fred E. Jandt's (1998)

Intercultural Communication: An Introduction, which covered a variety of topics related

to intercultural communication: barriers to intercultural communication, non-verbal

communication, immigration and acculturation, identity and subgroups, to name a few.

118
The required textbook for Fieldwork B was Judith Bell's (2000) Doing Your Research

Project: A Guide for First-Time Researchers in Education and Social Science, which

covered a variety of topics, including designing and administering questionnaires,

conducting interviews and observations, doing a literature review, finding and searching

information sources, and analyzing documentary evidence.

The major difference between these half courses was that whereas Language

Fieldwork A focused on a teacher-determined subject (i.e., intercultural communication),

Language Fieldwork B allowed students to choose their topics in social science and

education by focusing on research methods. Izzat commented that she chose intercultural

communication as course content for Term 1, when students were still new to Canada, so

as to facilitate their transition to the new culture. As for the Term 2 course, she explained

in her outline why she decided to offer a course on research methodology as follows:

WPU-Keishin Academic Exchange students come from a variety of backgrounds such as

International Relations, Law, and Political Science. After a few months' study at WPU,
some Keishin students decide to get into the field of Education (i.e., to become teachers
in the future). Although all Keishin students wish to take W P U courses that are
directly related to their majors and interests, due to some W P U prerequisites, it is
not possible for all of them to do so. Furthermore, almost all the courses at W P U ,
including the courses offered in the Keishin Program, require students to conduct
some kind of document or empirical research. However, a majority of students are
not equipped to cope with this demand. This course is designed to meet such needs.
(Semester 2 course outline, my emphasis)

Moreover, Izzat explained in one of the interviews that her decision had been informed

by Keishin University:

Excerpt 4.1

Also I heard from my colleagues here that Keishin University uh hopes and wishes and
even asked people here to teach their students umm as many things as possible that have
immediate relevance to the students' fields of specialization. But uh - since we have
students from many many areas it's impossible for me or for anybody here to teach uh
let's say law for 20 minutes and Japanese literature for another 20 minutes or and we are
not even qualified to do those. So umm but anyway I agreed that uh students if possible
would be able to do as much as they can - something that has something to do with their

119
 fields of specialization. But again because we cannot do that - (I mean) we are not
qualified to teach law or economics. The other reason is it's impossible to do that due to
the many specializations students bring. So I wondered um last year uh -1 thought about
the ways and methods that I can provide the students to be able to learn as much as they
can. (interview, April 27, 2001)

Thus, it was in her attempt to respond better to the disciplinary diversity of the Keishin

student body that Izzat decided to offer a research course that would allow students to

investigate their chosen topics in social science and education while familiarizing them

with various ways to conduct research. In other words, Language Fieldwork B provided

students with a wider range of choices than Language Fieldwork A. Because of this, Izzat

decided that research methods would be appropriate content in Term 2 when students

were more familiar with life in Canada and thus possibly more comfortable and

independent.

Despite the difference in content, these courses had several fundamental

similarities. Firstly, both courses were organized around student projects that constituted

a major part of the course work. Secondly, they were both organized in such a way that

the instructor focused primarily on students' development of background knowledge

about the subject matter through exposition and reflection whereas her TA Abraham's

lessons focused primarily on students' development of practical understanding of the

same subject matter through hands-on activities. According to Izzat and Abraham, the

former teacher's lessons dealt mainly with the "theory" of intercultural communication

and research in social science and education whereas the latter teacher's lessons dealt

mainly with the "practice" of these subject matters. The following excerpt was part of the

explanation that Abraham provided about the course at his first class meeting for the

second semester:

120
Excerpt 4.2

Same thing as last year, (0.9) (but) we'll be in a different classroom, - with air-
conditioning, ((laughs)) (0.5) ...Uh: hopefully I'll be - helping you do some of the
practical stuff. Uh: you'll be talking about theory with Izzat, and I'll be doing a little bit
of practice - here in the lab. (Class 1, January 10, 2001)

For example, whereas Izzat taught them principles of research designs, methods, and

ethics, Abraham taught them how to keep records, make notes, and write a research paper

as well as took the students to some of the major libraries on campus.

Thirdly, both Language Fieldwork A and B had as their goals assisting students in

developing critical thinking skills, problem-solving skills, cooperative skills, and

academic interests, as well as academic content knowledge and discourse. Izzat said that

her main goal was to initiate her students into the academic culture(s) of "Canadian"

universities. In what follows, we will look at these goals as defined by Izzat in class as

well as in the course outlines.

4.2.1.1 Learning Academic Content and Discourse

As a content-based course, Language Fieldwork had as a major goal helping

students learn the content and language of the subject matters: intercultural

communication (Semester 1), research methodologies for social science and education,

and their areas of specialization (Semester 2). For instance, in the course outline for

Language Fieldwork A, Izzat wrote that the course was designed to provide students

opportunities to "gain knowledge about intercultural communication by learning about

the cultures of others and their own" and to learn the academic language/discourse in the

subject area of intercultural communication" (Course outline for Language Fieldwork A).

Similarly, in the course outline for Language Fieldwork B, she wrote that the course was

designed to help students gain knowledge about their chosen topics and learn the

121
language of social science research methods and their specializations. At the first class

meeting for each semester, Izzat gave her students time to read the course outline, went

over it, and explained the course objectives and assignments to them. The following

excerpt illustrates how she explained the goal of learning academic language/discourse:

Excerpt 4.3

From now on what you need to do is to go into your own field, a:nd study the language
that is needed - in there. Okay? A:nd that's what you need - in order to become -
scientists - and be able to talk to everyone in the world. In - people in your field. That's
where you're going to present your work - that's where you're going to write - your
journal articles - that's where you're going to read - uh: other people's writing. Okay? So
that's why - you need to - somehow learn - the language that is needed in your
specialization. Okay? And this is a course - that - hopefully helps you - to be able to do
that - by doing research in your area of specialization. You will read - books. You will
read articles that are written in your field. And uh: by doing research yourself in your
area of specialization - you will learn to talk about it by yourself - write about it by
yourself. (Class 3, January 4, 2001)

As these excerpts show, this course aimed to apprentice students into the cultures of

intercultural communicators and researchers of social science and education.

4.2.1.2 Developing Critical Thinking Skills

A third major goal of Izzat's Language Fieldwork course was to help students

develop their critical thinking skills. In the following excerpt, Izzat is starting her lecture

about Chapter 13 (entitled "Contact between Cultures") of the Jandt book:

Excerpt 4.4

Izzat: All right. Now let's get into - the lecture. Yeah as you know um the - today's topic is -
contact between cultures? And uh: because all information is in the text, I don't want to
repeat whatever is in there because you read it - you know what's in there. What I really
like to do is - to help you think critically - to help you think beyjjjnd what you read.
Or to help you understand what more can be interpreted from what's written in the
text. So I always uh do - a lot of questions and answers kind of lecturing. Rather than just
repeating what's in the textbook. That's why my uh: u:mm - my lecture today also
starts with a question. (November 3, 2000)

Here, Izzat announces that she will not simply go over the content of the chapter as the

students are supposed to have read it as homework, and that she would instead like to

122
help them "think beyond" what they read or "understand what more can be interpreted

from what's written in the text" by asking them questions. As we will see later in this

chapter, Izzat would often show computer-printed questions about the text using the

overhead projector (OHP) and had the students discuss answers in small groups, as well

as ask questions while lecturing in whole class sessions. She also encouraged her students

to think beyond not only what they read, but also what they observed and experienced in

the field.

The following excerpt was taken from thefirstclass meeting for the second

semester in which Izzat explained the plan for Language Fieldwork B. Here, the teacher

is discussing the importance of evaluating the trustworthiness of research and drawing

one's own conclusions.

Excerpt 4.5

1 Izzat: So anyway - now you - by - by studying these things ((referring to research skills))-
you learn to be critical. You learn - not to learn to believe everything that you
hear - because - we know that - as soon as we know that according to this researcher
- so and so professor said this - you think that - this guy's spend ten years doing this
research - it must be true. So we believe in it. But after this course - you are not
going to believe in it. You have to find out who this professor is - where did the
money come from to do this research - why is he doing this research - who did he do
this research for - and the:n you're going to interpret the data - by yourself. Then
you're going to make your own conclusions. Okay? That's how you become
critical. Do you understand me?

2 Ss: ((Some students nod.)) (January 5, 2001)

What is more, Izzat often explained the importance of being "constructively critical,"

saying that it is not courteous to criticize others' works unsparingly without considering

and acknowledging their possible contributions. Additionally, from thefirstday of her

course, Izzat occasionally stressed in class the importance of "agreeing to disagree" so as

to foster constructive discussion conductive to student learning.

123
 According to Pally (1997), development of critical thinking skills benefits from

studying one content area over time. This is because sustained content study allows

students to accumulate subject matter information, which would in turn help them "to

question, synthesize, and evaluate what they read" (p. 293). It is also because such a

study allows students to become familiar with the rhetorical conventions of the field. In

short, development of critical thinking skills, like the learning of academic language and

content, is seen as an important part of academic discourse socialization. Importantly,

Izzat expressed similar views when she was asked about the goals of her course at the

interview conducted at the beginning of the year.

4.2.1.3 Developing Problem-Solving Skills

Development of problem-solving skills was another important goal of Izzat's

Language Fieldwork, especially in the second semester. At the first class meeting for

Language Fieldwork B, Izzat provided her students with this explanation:

Excerpt 4.6

Izzat: During - the time you're going to do your research project - you're going to run into a lot
of problems. Okay? (0.6) .. .In doing research - there are a lot of problems that you have
to solve - you have to anticipate - and you have to deal with. (January 5, 2001)

As an example, Izzat referred to the difficulty that a group of her students had collecting

questionnaires that they administered in the previous semester as volunteers in

psychology research. Faced by this problem, the students enlisted the cooperation of their

peers by announcing that they would throw a party for their research participants.

Another example she gave had to do with methods for data collection and negotiation of

access. Explaining the evanescence of human memory, Izzat said that researchers would

soon forget or confuse details of their observed events with the passage of time. She then

said that this problem could be solved by using audio- and video-recording, but not all

124
participants might agree to be audio- and/or video-recorded, which is another problem to

be solved one way or another. Giving these examples, Izzat told her students that they

would need to deal with a variety of problems as they occur over the course of their

projects. Research project work was thus seen to provide opportunities to practice

problem-solving skills in the context of a meaningful activity.

4.2.1.4 Developing Cooperative Skills

Another goal of Izzat's course was to foster students' cooperative skills through

project work. In the following excerpt, which was again taken from the first class meeting

for the second semester, Izzat is explaining how doing a research project might help them

learn cooperative skills:

Excerpt 4.7

1 Izzat: All right. U:mm - how about cooperative working skills. How does - how do you
learn cooperative skills by doing research, ((clears her throat and looks at Yoshino.))

2 Yoshi: Share - share my opinion with other people.

3 Izzat: Okay, by sharing opinion? All right. The other is that - we haven't uh: gotten to that
point - in the course outline yet. ((clears her throat.)) The project - research project is
going to be a pair project? Meaning that - two of you are going to do one research -
36

project. And - that's already cooperative work. If you cannot - cooperate you are not
going to finish this uh project. So that's one way of cooperation. And along the way
you have to be able to cooperate with a lot of people. Again, who are - what are you
going to do for your research. Where are you going. How do you do it. Do you - let's
say if you choose to interview (0.9) the first thing you have to do is - you have to
know how to cooperate - with the people you're going to interview. You have to
know how to ask them nicely. And you have to learn what to do if they say no.
(January 5, 2001)

As we will see later in this chapter, students were encouraged or required to complete

many of their assignments in pairs or groups of three. However, Izzat's use of the term

"cooperation" here is not limited to cooperation among group members. It refers to

J0
As we will see later, Izzat encouraged the students to do the Semester 2 project in pairs, rather than in
small groups. But there were some groups of three.

125
students' cooperation with a number of people, including their teachers, classmates,

librarians, and research participants. In other words, students were encouraged to use all

the available human resources to undertake their projects. Similarly, Abraham often

explained the importance of discussing data with others including their teachers, peers,

and the researcher. For instance, in one lesson, he said to the students, "Talk to Izzat, me,

your friends, and Masaki" (March 7, 2001).

4.2.1.5 Developing Academic Interests

Yet another goal of the content-based course was for the students to develop

interests in some of the topics covered in it. Izzat wrote in the course outline that

Language Fieldwork A was designed to help students "develop interests in pursuing one

or more areas covered in the course for their future studies (e.g., a topic for their

bachelor's degree thesis and/or for their postgraduate studies)" (Course outline for

Language Fieldwork A). This was also an important goal of Language Fieldwork B, as

the following excerpt suggests:

Excerpt 4.8

Izzat: I'd like you to develop some interests in pursuing one - or more areas covered in the
course - for your future studies. And it can be anything from - what you research on or it
could be one of the topics that we cover in class. Like uh: research. All of a sudden - you
might - start - showing an interest and hey - this - studying how to do research is
interesting - maybe I become a researcher - for researches how to do research. Okay? Or
you may say -1 did my research project - and I found this problem really really
interesting. Or - hey this critical thinking thing sounds very interesting, well how to look
at research critically. So maybe I'll study this. So it's that kind of idea that I have
here.. .One of my purpose is - in teaching you is to introduce you to something more - to
be able to enable you to see that there are interesting things you can study - more in the
future. Okay? (January 5, 2001)

Izzat often shared with her classes her belief that one fundamental purpose of

undergraduate education is to introduce students to as many subjects as possible and help

them find out what their academic and professional interests are. Also, Izzat often told

126
her classes about some of her previous students who, after taking her course, decided to

pursue their interests by taking more courses at WPU and/or Keishin University or by

doing graduate studies back in Japan. For instance, two of her students who had satisfied

the TOEFL requirement decided to take a regular course on intercultural communication

through the Department of Anthropology in the second semester. However, this does not

mean that students had to develop interests in topics covered in the course. As she often

told her classes, her purpose was to provide her students with chances to study what she

had to offer and to see if they could find anything they would like to pursue in the future.

Thus, even if her students did not develop interests in any of the topics covered in the

course, Izzat considered it satisfying because it means that they learned that their interests

lie in something else.

4.2.2 Other Values Fostered in the Classroom Community

In addition to the above goals, there were other values promoted in this classroom

culture. These included (1) learning by observing and emulating the model, (2) the

teacher as an "ESL person," and (3) LI as a resource for learning. These values as well as

the above course goals are necessary to interpret Keishin students' project-related

activities in a socioculturally meaningful way.

4.2.2.1 Learning through Observation and Emulation of the Model

As we saw in Chapter 2, from a language socialization perspective, observation is

considered to be an important way for novices to learn the sociocultural practices of their

community. This aspect of learning seemed to be promoted by the teacher of the content-

based course under study. For example, to help her Keishin students understand the

requirements of the poster project, Izzat showed them some of the posters produced by

127
the previous groups of her students that she considered exemplary. As we will see later in

this chapter, she also asked Abraham to give a model presentation for her students.

Izzat encouraged her students not only to observe the models, but also to emulate

them. She often told her classes how impressive the academic performances of her

students in the previous Keishin group (Keishin 9) were, but at the same time, she

believed that her Keishin 10 students could excel them. In the following excerpt, Izzat is

commenting on the posters produced by her Keishin 10 students. She expresses her

appreciation for this work, comparing it with that of Keishin 9.

Excerpt 4.9

Izzat: ((referring to the students' posters on the wall)) This is great. It's better than last year's.
[X: Really?] You did it. ((laughs)) Ha-ha-ha-ha. Umm - Okay. (October 5, 2000)

Similarly, in the following excerpt, having seen the student presentations for the

day, Izzat is providing positive feedback, referring to the previous group. What is

important here is that she is also making explicit her belief that every generation of

students should excel the preceding one.

Excerpt 4.10

Izzat: So here it proves one more time that uh - that you truly - are better than Keishin 9
students. That is good. Every gene- every generation - every year... the students
should be better than the previous ones. And that's how things should work. So it's
really good. And I'm very encouraged. Okay? And umm yeah again I hope you - keep up
the good work. (October 27, 2003)

In the following excerpt taken from the discourse of the first class meeting for

Semester 2, the instructor is explaining the range of topics that her students chose for

their group projects. Once again, she tells her Keishin 10 students that they could do

better than those in the previous group.

128
Excerpt 4.11

Izzat: Last January I tried it and worked quite well actually. People did choose topics in their
field. We had uh: wonderful research projects that are still in my office. You can have a
look. We had a research on human brain. Brain and language. We had a research on
capital punishment - people who majored in law - they did research on how to uh: how -
why certain countries have uh death penalty and others don't. And some people did
research on education comparing Canadian primary school education to Japanese primary
school education. And others did research on - banking - economics people... So it - uh:
possible to - do what I said here that we could do. So I'm hoping that we'll do a better
job this year - because - those of you who have been with me for five months you
know that I say this a lot that - because I -1 trust that your guys can do it and uh -
in many ways you seem to be - better than Keishin 9 students. So that's why I'm
saying that we should be able to do a better job. Okay? (January 5, 2001)

Izzat said both in class and at an interview that she believed that Keishin 9

students would serve for Keishin 10 students as "good" role models within their reach

(see Murphey, 1998, for a relevant discussion). This was another reason why Izzat

encouraged her students to emulate the previous group. Additionally, Izzat promoted the

intergenerational interaction, as it were, between Keishin 9 and 10 students. For example,

she invited to her classes one of her previous students from the Keishin 9 group to talk

about her post-WPU experience in Japan. When she heard from another Keishin 9 student

about his early acceptance into a graduate program at Keishin University, Izzat

encouraged her Keishin 10 students to contact him if they were interested in pursuing

graduate studies. Here, it is important to recall that it was Keishin 9 students that, as

senpai or old-timers, organized many of the pre-departure orientation sessions for the

Keishin 10 group under the guidance of the program director and a WPU student. Thus,

the view of previous participants in the joint program as peer role models was promoted

at both classroom and program levels.

In addition, many of the Keishin students seemed to value learning through

observation. In their interviews, journal entries, and group meetings, students often

referred to their teachers' and peers' actions, using Japanese words such as minarau

129
(learn by seeing), manesuru (imitate), tehon (copybook), mihon (model), and sankoo

(reference), all of which seem to reflect their conceptions of themselves as observers

willing to learn from others (see Singleton, 1996). According to Peak (1998), "Imitation

of a superior model has traditionally been the core of teaching-learning process in almost

every Japanese art form or discipline" (p. 359). This is because many Japanese teachers

believe that "in the effort to approximate an ideal model, students will gain the superior

quality of a great performer, rather than lose that which is distinctive about themselves"

(Peak, 1998, p. 359). Likewise, DeCoker (1996) states, drawing upon his experience as a

student of Japanese art, that in a traditional approach to learning, "Mastery of the model

is of foremost importance" (p. 69). In fact, the original meaning of the Japanese word

manabu (learning) is manebu, which means "imitate" (Shinmura, 1998). Keishin students

attempted to learn the practices of giving an oral presentation by observing the

performances of their teachers and peers. However, they did not simply imitate others'

performances; they also attempted to use their creativity. As reported above, the teacher

often encouraged them to do academically better than the Keishin 9 students. At the

interviews and group meetings for the poster project, many Keishin 10 students expressed

their desire to produce "something different" from their seniors' products. In other words,

they wanted to do better on the task than the previous group by incorporating unique

elements into their work (see Excerpt 7.20).

4.2.2.2 The Teacher as an "ESL Person"

In giving advice to her students, Izzat often used the first person plural pronouns

"we" and "us" in her speech. For example, after Nana and Shinpei's group presentation,

she said

130
Excerpt 4.12

Izzat: Did you remember some of those? Like uh they found out uh the importance of umm
right usage of word for instance. As E S L people - [Nana: Yeah.] Uh especially we learn-
sometimes we learn from dictionaries. We- we try- we look up a word- English word in-
in Chinese in Japanese in uh in Spanish whatever language. And then looking at the
translation it looks like the right word. But sometimes there are little nuances in there.
(March 15, 2001)

In this excerpt, Izzat constructs both her students and herself as "ESL people." When

asked at their interviews what they liked most about Izzat's teaching, several students

commented that they appreciated her profound understanding of what it is like to be a

non-native speaker and that her presentation of herself as a "learner" made them feel

close to her. As a matter of fact, Izzat often told her classes that since they were not only

learning an L2, but also studying academic content through their L2, they should be

proud of themselves, thereby promoting a positive view of being an ESL student.

4.2.2.3 LI as a Tool for Student Learning

Although the medium of instruction was English, use of Japanese among students

was not discouraged in Izzat's Language Fieldwork course. For instance, in working in

small groups, students sometimes used Japanese. But neither Izzat nor Abraham

discouraged their use of Japanese although they sometimes encouraged them to talk to

each other in English both in and out of class time. In fact, in her lectures, Izzat, as a

Chinese speaker, sometime wrote Chinese characters on the blackboard for such concepts

as goods, theme, liberate, occupy, feminist, and objectivity. Since Chinese characters

(kanji) are also used in modern Japanese, when written, most of them made sense to the

Japanese students despite the great difference in pronunciation. Also, the instructor gave

the option of using Japanese when she had her students write the definitions of 50 key

terms in the textbook in mid January, saying that the primary purpose of this activity was

131
to help them learn the concepts. When he took attendance, Abraham always placed the

family name before the given name, which is a custom in Japan. Interestingly, many

students commented that these classroom practices made them feel that their language

and culture were valued.

Furthermore, Abraham said at the his Semester 1 interview:

Excerpt 4.13

I do believe they feel more comfortable speaking Japanese in groups. I - I'm not very
strict on that. They tend to speak English when I come close. But actually I think -
recently they become very aware that I even - that doesn't bother me so much so - they
feel - they seem to be much more comfortable about speaking Japanese, ((laughs)) I truly
feel like -1 mean it doesn't have to be in English. Just the idea of working with someone
on a project - is one of the skills. Being able to negotiate - "I wanna do this - you wanna
do this." And compromise. Umm being able to support arguments - saying uh "this is
important" - and so on. (interview, November 9, 2001)

For Abraham, to be able to negotiate, compromise, and support arguments was a more

important goal of group project work than to speak L2. In other words, it was the nature

of talk, rather than the language of talk, that was valued. Similarly, Taichi, Ichiro's

partner for the Semester 1 project, expressed his view on use of LI and L2 as follows:

Excerpt 4.14

In my opinion, which language I choose, English or Japanese, is influenced by

surroundings. If my friend who often uses English, I try to respond in English. As well, if
I speak to my friends who are apt to use Japanese, I try to speak in Japanese. In other
word, I am required to notice who tend to speak English or Japanese... I may judge the
person's priority when I choose language. For example, Ichiro no longer thinks English is
the most important thing for him. It may be economics or something. So he regards
English as the tool to study subject. On the other hand, Tamiko's priority is English itself.
Especially she regards speaking as the most important thing. Therefore I speak to her in
English, (e-mail interview, February 8, 2001)

Taichi further commented that since he regarded both English and Japanese as

tools for learning academic content, he chose whichever was appropriate in a given

situation. This view seemed to be shared by many of the Keishin students, who referred

at their interviews and group meetings to Izzat's use of Chinese characters in her lectures.

132
 While there was a tacit agreement about the use of LI among members of most

groups, a few groups seem to have negotiated which language to use for their group

meetings. The following excerpt comes from the first group meeting that Ringo had with

her partners Tamiko and Fuyumi for their Semester 1 presentation. In Line 1, Ringo uses

Japanese to ask Tamiko what she plans to talk about in the presentation. In the following

line, Tamiko first asks her partners if she can speak in English and then starts to tell them

about her plan in the L2. Interestingly, Ringo continues to speak in Japanese while

Fuyumi starts to speak in English. In Line 10, Ringo comments that it is difficult to

understand what Tamiko is trying to say.

E x c e r p t 4.15

1 Ringo: Tami-chan purezen de nani happyo suru tsumoril [Tami-chan, what do you
intend to talk about in the presentation?]
2 Tami: I ju- Uh: ((laughs)) can I try to speak English? I'm just thinking to like - sur-
survey - like focus on the project or facility, of welfare.

3 Ringo: Fasirit'i? Shisetsu ne. [Facility? It means shisetsu [facility], right?]

4 Tami: But not so big project - I'm just like uh - thinking to -

5 Fuyu: Eh - what do you mean facility.

6 Ringo: Fasirit'i tte doo iu koto - hon naragutaiteki ni. [What exactly do you mean by

facility.]

7 Tami: Like the - uh:

8 Fuyu: Like machine? Or transportation?

9 Tami: I mean - I'm sure Fuyumi knows uh: what- what I'm doing in the volunteer
work, but - so I'm always doing like - hmm dropping off their house? When
they are back to home from senior center. And I'm just accompanying with
her- ah: with them, to see like - to take care about they-
10 Ringo: ((referring to Tami's utterances)) Muzukashii naa - rikai suru no. [It's difficult
to understand.]

11: Tami: Is it? (Ringo's room, November 13, 2000)

133
 After this interaction, Tamiko continued to speak in English, and Fuyumi

responded to this effort by also speaking in English. On the other hand, Ringo stopped

speaking although she listened to her partners' exchange. After several minutes, Ringo

started to speak to Tamiko in Japanese again. This time, surprisingly, Tamiko started to

speak Japanese. Consequently, this group did the rest of their discussion primarily in
37

Japanese. Ringo later told me that she was against the idea of speaking only English at

their group meetings because she thought that they would stumble over too many

language problems, which might in turn prevent the group from making a substantial or

content-rich presentation in the limited amount of time that they had.

4.2.3 Major Classroom Activities

There were two major types of activities in Izzat's classes: teacher lectures and

small group discussions.

4.2.3.1 Teacher Lectures

Responsible for the lecture component of the course, Izzat spent most of her class

time talking about the course content. However, as we have seen earlier (Excerpt 4.4), the

instructor did not simply read through the text. To make her lectures more interactive and

engaging, she would often ask the students questions about the topic of the day and told

them relevant stories. In the following example, Izzat asks her students what the textbook

says about the time orientation of people in the Middle East: 38

1 found this quite surprising because I had never seen or heard Tamiko speak Japanese in any situation.
J/

As Taichi's comment in Section 4.2.2.3 suggests, Tamiko's primary purpose for participating in the
exchange program was to improve her English, especially oral and aural skills. As such, she spoke to
everyone in English.
38
According to Jandt (1998), the author of the textbook, polychronic time is characteristic of Latin America
as well as the Middle East.

134
Excerpt 4.16

1 Izzat: This might be interesting to you. (0.7) umm the author talks about the time
orientation of Islam. (0.8) And again, this is not to say that all Muslims work this
way. But - in general, (0.6) some people believe - that (0.7) uh: Muslims or umm
(0.9) people who believe in Islam (1.2) work differently in terms of time. (0.7) So
what does the uh: author say in our text. (1.8)

2 Wata: Polychronic. (0.9)

3 Izzat: Polychronic. Good! (0.5) What does polychronic mean? ... ((shares with the
students the comments an old Keishin teacher made about their posters on non-verbal
communication)) I'm so proud of you guys. Great! (12.8)

4 Wata: ((looks at his text)) Uh: it means ((reading from the text)) "the involvement
of people and com - completion of tran - saction rather than (0.7) adherence to
schedule?"

5 Izzat: Y E : S . It refers to schedules, (0.5) and uh: it- according to the author anyway, he
says that polychronic means that (0.8) you don't uh: adhere to schedules strictly. Like
you do many things at a time. (0.6) And you may say - uh: rather than - let's meet at
ten o'clock. You may say oh how about tomorrow morning. (0.5) So any time
between seven o'clock in the morning to twelve is tomorrow morning. He he he h -
and uh: people don't get angry if you - are not there - umm exactly at ten. Because
everybody understands that- (0.9) yeah: roughly at that time. And things may happen
because-1 couldn't come because something else happened. You do many things at
the same time. (0.6) And this reminded me of somebody -1 think it's Abraham. I
forgot who. (0.6) Somebody told me that a Japanese girl worked at one of the Arabic
- consulates (1.0) I think in Japan. (0.6) And she got very frustrated because people
seemed to be canceling things all the time...

6 Ss: ((laugh))

7 Izzat: But anyway - I'm not trying to uh - uh: promote this stereotype if it is - of who does
what in general term. But - things seem to happen. It seems to me that there's some
truth to what our text is saying about it. Yeah anyway - polychronic means that (0.5)
you don't adhere to time schedules strictly. You do many things at the same time.
(Class 3, October 23, 2000)

In Line 1, Izzat asks the class what the author says about the time orientation in

the Middle East. Wataru then answers, "Polychronic," which is one of the key terms in

the textbook. In Line 3, Izzat provides positive feedback and asks Wataru to explain the

term. Wataru then reads the author's definition from the textbook, to which the instructor

responds again with positive feedback in Line 5.

135
 This type of teacher-student interaction has been referred to in the literature as

IRE (Initiation-Response-Evaluation) or IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback) sequence

(e.g., Cazden, 1988, 2001; Gibbons, 2002; Mehan, 1979; Newman, Griffin, & Cole,

1989; Poole, 1990; van Lier, 1988, 1996,1998a). According to Newman et al. (1989),

"the three-part unit has a built-in repair procedure in the teacher's last turn so that

incorrect information can be replaced with the right answers" (p. 127). This, van Lier

(1998a) argues, restricts students' opportunities to exercise initiative and opportunities to

develop a sense of control and self-regulation. Moreover, Cazden (1988) states, "IRE is

the 'default' pattern—what happens unless deliberate action is taken to achieve some

alternatives" (p. 53). In the present context, the IRE sequence was employed to make

more interactive and possibly more engaging the lectures which would otherwise have

been one-way transmission of information through monological discourse (van Lier,

1996). However, as she was aware of the limitations of the sequence, Izzat used another

interactional structure (Ramirez, 1995) in her lecture time, namely, small group

discussions.

Before we move on to the examination of this activity, a few more remarks should

be made about Izzat's lectures. She often shared her own experiences pertinent to the

lectures, which her students seemed to appreciate and enjoy. Moreover, the instructor

would often refer to previous events in her lectures. In the following example, answering

a question from one of her students, she reminds the class that they have previously

discussed objectivity and subjectivity:

Excerpt 4.17

Facts and biases. Mm - it's a very good question. Because I'm sure people have lots of
different ideas on this. The first reaction of course is well a fact is a fact. You know? But

136
 as we know, even fact can be as complicated as other things. Umm remember we talked
about objectivity, and subjectivity? ((some students nod)) Yeah? We try to be
objective, we try to tell the truth. But depending on who is telling what - and at what
time, - even the fact can be somewhat biased. Okay? (Class 1, January 18, 2001)

Thus, the instructor tried to promote her students' understanding of the two

technical terms by building on their previous conversation about it. In other words, this

can be seen as the instructor's attempt to continue their historical ("long") conversation

about the topic (Mercer, 2000). Furthermore, Izzat would often refer to what her students

had previously said within the same lesson or on other occasions. One example is that

when explaining the importance of making sense of the volunteer experience in Classes 1

and 2, she shared with them what Tomo and Koyuki's group had said in their

presentation given in Class 3. Interestingly, although they were not present when this

happened, Tomo and Koyuki later heard from their friends in the other classes what their

teacher had said about their task performance. They said that this made them happy.

Thus, in this classroom community, making intertextual links to previous events seems to

have been an important way to create a shared context for learning and to acknowledge

students' contributions to the teaching-learning process (see Duff, 1995; O'Conner &

Michaels, 1996, for relevant discussions).

4.2.3.2 Small Group Discussions

Another major activity in Language Fieldwork was small group discussion. As

briefly mentioned earlier, in the first semester, Izzat often presented questions about the

text using the OHP and had the students answer these questions in small groups.

Excerpt 4.18

Izzat: We're going to do what we did last time? That is uh - just talk to your- the person sitting
beside you. Three of you or two of you. An:d look for answers for these questions,
((reading from the OHP screen)) "What are the ethnographic and cultural approaches
to studying intercultural communication." This is mentioned in the book? I know

137
 you read it but again - look at the book and talk to the person who's sitting beside you, to
see uh: what was your understanding of that. That's one question, (3.3) and the other
question is (1.9) "What do you think of umm (0.6) the Sugawara Survey on page 51."
(8.3) Okay? (11.0) ((many of the students nod)) Okay. Third question, ((reading from the
screen)) "How can assuming similarities be a barrier to intercultural
communication" (3.4) Remember? The textbook says that - assuming similarities
instead of differences - can be a barrier to - to uh intercultural communication. How
could that- how so. How could that happen. Okay? So let's do what we did last
time. (Class 1, October 6, 2000)

As this example suggests, small group discussions were intended to help students

understand the content of the textbook and to provide opportunities to use some of the

language specific to the subject.

In the second semester, too, students had opportunities to work in small groups in

Izzat's classes. But this time, their task was not to answer teacher-developed questions,

but to come up with their own questions. Each group was required to come up with at

least two questions. Students would ask the teacher one of these questions in subsequent

whole-class discussions and post the other question on the on-line class bulletin board to

initiate discussion.

4.2.4 Course Assignments as Tasks

With the goal of initiating her students into the academic culture of the Canadian

university, Izzat designed the Language Fieldwork course to maximize student

participation in a variety of activities and interactions. As such, she required them to

undertake group project work that consisted of various academic tasks such as oral

presentations,fieldjournal writing, and research report writing. In this section, I will

describe the requirements of these tasks, paying particular attention to the oral

presentations. Also, I will examine the resources for and constraints on students' oral

presentations.

138
4.2.4.1 Semester 1 Tasks

During Semester 1, Kiku, Koyuki, Nana, and Tomo were enrolled in Class 1, one

of the three sections of the Language Fieldwork course that Izzat taught; Otome, Ringo,

and Ichiro were enrolled in Class 2; Yoshino, Shinpei, Rei, and Sakura were enrolled in

Class 3. The first assignment for Language Fieldwork A was a poster project which

required students to create a poster on non-verbal communication and explain its meaning

to the class. Thus, there was an (informal) oral presentation component to this project.

The instructor strongly encouraged students to work in pairs or groups of three in the

course outline and orally in class, stressing the importance of learning how to work

cooperatively with others (see Appendix H). Students were allowed to design their

posters in any way they wished, but they were required to provide definitions of

nonverbal communication and explain functions and types of nonverbal communication

on the posters.

Major assignments for the Semester 1 course centered around 10 to 15 hours of

volunteer work at places of students' choice, and included threefieldexperience

journals (worth 20% of the grade), a 30-minute oral presentation offieldexperience

(10%o), and a term paper (i.e., individually written report of the field experience, 15%).

Here it is important to note that since many volunteer positions required high English

proficiency and area-specific knowledge and skills, some students ended up simply

taking positions that were available. While working as volunteers, students were required

to keep individual journals in which they wrote about their work and learning. For this

assignment, the instructor often encouraged the students to "make meaning" of their

39
The Keishin program first incorporated volunteer work into its courses during the year when this study
was conducted. Some students questioned the notion of doing "volunteer" work as a class assignment (see
Eyler & Giles, 1999, for relevant discussion).

139
experience by comparing and contrasting it with their previous similar experiences in

Japan and with their learning from the lectures and seminars.

All the assignments were closely related: Izzat explains in the course outline,

"Field-experience journals will be developed into your oral presentations and term

papers, so that the more thoughts you put into the journals, the less work you have to do

for the presentation and term paper" (p. 5). The oral presentation therefore was an end

product and a step toward the term paper. Below is a description of the oral presentation

task in her course outline:

The oral presentation is the sharing of your volunteer experiences. You will tell the class
what you did as a volunteer, what you learned, and what significance this learning will
have for your future. You have 2 0 minutes for the presentation and 10 minutes for
discussion. Your presentation has to be well-organized and interesting. You are
encouraged to use audio-visual and graphic materials in your presentation and to talk
from them. That is, do not read from your notes. There will be a model presentation to
show you how oral presentations are done. You are encouraged to do this assignment in
pairs (i.e., groups of two) because working with another person can result in more and
better ideas. Also, you will feel less nervous at the presentation. However, if you
REALLY prefer to work alone, you may do so. (Semester 1 course outline, emphasis
original)

For this task, most students worked with a classmate or two who worked at the

same place or who did similar volunteer work. For instance, Shinpei chose to work with

his classmate with whom he volunteered at the same travel agency. Ringo worked with

two classmates who volunteered at a senior citizens center. However, not all students had

a classmate who did the same or similar volunteer work. In such a case, students were

allowed to work with peers enrolled in other sections of Izzat's course. For example,

Yoshino, who volunteered for a Halloween event, decided to work with two other

students who went to the same event but were enrolled in the other sections. After

considering their schedule, they agreed to give their presentation in Yoshino's class.

Moreover, there were a small number of students who could not find classmates who did

140
similar volunteer work. In such cases, Izzat still encouraged students to work with others

and to see if they could find something that they all learned from their respective

experiences. As we will see in Chapter 5, not having a classmate who did similar work,

Tomo and Koyuki decided to work together with another student who had been

unsuccessful in getting a volunteer position. Table 4.1 shows a list of the volunteer

positions that Keishin students took.

Table 4.1: Volunteer Placement

Volunteer Placement Number of Students
Daycare centers & Preschools 16
Senior centers 6
Japanese language classes at WPU 11
Human rights committee of a Japanese Canadians' association 1
Psychology research projects at WPU 2
Travel agencies 8
Japanese broadcasting company 2
Radio station at WPU 1
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 2
Public art events and festivals 3
Trading company 1
Others"
4
8

Since all the Semester 1 presentations took place in the Keishin lab, students had

access to standard equipment including an OHP and data projector and the lab manager's

help, which made it relatively easy to make PowerPoint presentations.

4.2.4.2 Semester 2 Tasks

In the second semester, nine out of the eleven key students decided to stay in

Izzat's course as Ichiro and Tomo, who had satisfied the university's TOEFL criterion,

decided to take regular courses instead. Kiku, Koyuki, Sakura, and Yoshino were

enrolled in Class A while Nana, Otome, Ringo, Sakura, and Shinpei were enrolled in

Class C. Major assignments for Language Fieldwork B revolved around research projects

Some students could not obtain volunteer positions and attended public lectures instead.

141
on topics of students' choice to be completed in pairs or groups of three, and included a

research portfolio (worth 25% of the grade, submitted three times), a 40-minute oral

presentation of research findings (20%), and a research paper (20%).

What was new in the second semester was that students were required to compile

research portfolios and submit them three times over the course period. This assignment

was explained in the course outline as a "collection of students' work that shows the

progress of their learning" (Semester 2 course outline). Required components for this

assignment included research problems and questions, a literature review, a description of

research methods, and analyses of data. Students were also encouraged to include their

journal entries. Izzat mentioned in class that the purpose of this assignment was twofold:

for her to keep track of her students' actions and thoughts and to provide them with

feedback on their project work. Both the oral presentation and written report were to be

co-authored whereas the portfolios were to be compiled individually. This means that

40% of the grading was based on pair/group work, suggesting that cooperation was

highly valued in this classroom culture.

The requirements for the oral presentation task were similar to those for the

Semester 1 presentation (Appendix I). The only differences were that the Semester 2

presentation was 10 minutes longer and counted 10% more toward the course grade:

Excerpt 4.19

Izzat: The presentation is uh: going to be the presentation of your research - project. Okay? It's
not something different. Just like what we did last term - you will present - what you did -
for your research project.. .And one thing that is different this term is that -1 assigned
more time for the presentation. We're going to - spend forty minutes. The presentation is
forty minutes each. (0.9) And for some of you - that may sound too much. You may think
wow - forty minutes - what am I going to say for forty minutes. If you don't have enough
things to say, that's okay. But I want to give you enough time - to say what you want to
say. Often times 40 minutes actually - last time we knew that 30 minutes was not
really enough. (Class 3, January 5, 2001)

142
In addition, encouraged by the instructor, most of the students chose to conduct their

research in pairs, rather than in groups of three. As a result, if divided equally, the time

allotted to each presenter was expected to be greater in the second semester than in the

first semester. There were some constraints on the students' presentations. For one thing,

not all students were able to choose a topic within their area of specialization as some

were majoring in natural science rather than social science. As we will see in Chapter 7,

for example, Kiku, as an engineering major, decided to study the history and culture of

First Nations people with another male student who had similar academic interests.

Another constraint was that unlike the Semester 1 presentations, which took place in the

Keishin lab, the Semester 2 presentations took place in regular classrooms in different

buildings. This made it difficult for Izzat's classes to have access to the data projector and

the lab manager's computer expertise. Izzat thus encouraged her students to "go low-

tech" (March 1, 2001), advising them not to make PowerPoint presentations.

4.2.5 Roles of the Teachers as Socializing Agents

As socializing agents, both the instructor and TA assumed different roles in the

instructional process to help their students accomplish their oral presentation tasks. These

included providing explicit explanations about and modeling of the task.

4.2.5.1 Explicit Explanation of the Task

Throughout her course, Izzat often took some class time to explain the

requirements of the course assignments. She said to her classes on several occasions that

as a student, she did not like it when her professors required her and her classmates to do

assignments without providing enough information. She strongly believed that teachers

are accountable for helping students understand the requirements of their tasks. Because

143
of this belief, for instance, she went over the course outline at the beginning of each

semester, which included the descriptions of the course assignments. The following

excerpts, which were taken from the transcript of the first class meeting for the second

semester, illustrates how the instructor explained her perceptions of and expectations

about the oral presentation task:

Excerpt 4.20

Izzat: And this term - because it's your research - we also want to learn from your research. So
I assigned longer time so we now have time to ask you questions. Okay? What this really
means is that actually it's going to be really exciting. It's a - let's say we have uh ((counts
the number of the students)) - we seem to have 18 students in this class, so if you do your
project in pairs - then we have - 18 uh: 9 - different projects will be going on in this class.
So by the end of the term - through your presentation - we'll all have learned about nice -
things. Okay? So nine pieces of research. And that is - to me very exciting. And that's
why I decided to give you longer time - to tell us what you did - what you found and what
you think of it. Okay? (January 5, 2001)

As this excerpt suggests, the instructor regarded the presentations as good opportunities

for her students to learn from each other.

In the following excerpt, Izzat encouraged her students not to read from their

notes. Recall that she made a similar statement in the course outline for Language

Fieldwork A. Nevertheless, as the above excerpt indicates, some students chose to read

their speech from manuscripts in the first semester. Although she was aware of this
41

method of delivery, Izzat did not push too hard because she thought that some might not

yet be ready for the challenge of speaking without manuscripts in public. However,

having seen their Semester 1 presentations, she felt that she could and should push them

harder on the Semester 2 presentation.

Excerpt 4.21a

Izzat: I know that - ((clears her throat)) you are excellent presenters. (0.9) But one thing I'd like
to point out is that last term we had a few people reading - from their notes. Okay? A:nd

41
This kind of delivery is referred to as "manuscript delivery" (Beebe & Beebe, 2000).

144
 um (1.7) what I'd like you to do differently this term - is that I strongly encourage you
not to read from your notes. I'd like you to speak from your notes - like I do. See I
have notes - in my hand all the time. But I don't read from it. I just uh look at it to
remind me what is it that I'm supposed to say (1.0) u:mm next. And uh: believe me -
you can do it - because - you will be reporting your research. Nobody knows your
research - but you. So we'll listen to you whatever you say. So rather than reading it -
you just tell us what you did. It's the easiest thing to do - because it's your research.
Okay? (Class 3, January 5, 2001)

In this excerpt, the instructor encourages the students to follow her example,

showing her lecture notes. She then tells her students that they can make presentations

without reading their speech because they will be reporting their own research, which no

one else knows. She went on to say:

Excerpt 4.21b

Reading from notes is the worst - way of doing a presentation. And that's the easiest
way to put people to sleep. No matter how important your research is - no matter how
interesting you think - your presentation is - as soon as you start reading from your notes
- people should start falling asleep. Okay? Because you are not looking at people - you
are not having eye contact. Because you are not - umm not excited about what you
say. By reading you cannot get too excited. But if you look at people - you respond to
how people look. A:nd uh that kind of presentation is much more interesting.
(January 5, 2001)

What is important about this excerpt is that the instructor expresses her beliefs

about what constitutes a "good" oral presentation. As evidenced by her use of the word

"worst" in the first utterance, she strongly discourages her students from reading their

manuscripts, saying that it is the easiest way to put their audience to sleep. From the

excerpt, it follows that to make a "good" oral presentation as perceived by the teacher,

presenters must make eye contact with and respond to their audience and convey

enthusiasm for the project. To this end, it was considered necessary for the presenters not

to read from their notes. Here, it is important to note that the instructor is concerned about

the interpersonal actions of the oral presentation task in the above excerpt. As we will see

145
in the following section, a "good" oral presentation must demonstrate critical reflection

on the research by going beyond the surface level description of observed events.

4.2.5.2 The Instructor's Explanation about and Modeling of the Journal Writing

Task

As we have seen earlier, students were required to keep their fieldwork journals

and submit them three times during thefirstsemester. Students submitted their first

journals in early October (Week 5). In the following week, the instructor told her students

that they had done a nice job of describing their volunteer activities, and the next step is

to go beyond mere descriptions by incorporating analyses of and discussion on their

observations. This advice applies to the oral presentation and thefinalpaper as they were

closely related to the journals. In the following excerpt, the instructor explains what this

means using as an example what one of her students had written in her journal based on

her experience as a volunteer at the Society for Prevention of Cruelty of Animals

(SPCA):

Excerpt 4.22

Izzat: .. .an analysis is like uh making sense of - what you describe. Say - okay (0.5) so I did
all this four or five things so what does this mean to me. (1.2) For instance it means (0.8)
okay let's use the dog situation. Let's say uh one, ((writes the number one on the black
board)) Canadians (0.8) seem to - treat animals (0.9) uh differently than we do in Japan
for instance. Uh two umm (4.1) let's say umm ((speaking softly)) probably - what can we
say - two. Canadians treat dogs differently. And then (3.4) ((back to the original volume))
let's say 1 don't understand (1.4) umm why for- for example - that the animals are treated
so well here. If this is the two things that you think you can get out of from here from
describing - this would be analysis, these two? And then you discuss - you say perhaps -
this is the reason why (xxx). Perhaps I don't understand this becau:se (1.4) because
there's a cultural difference. (0.9) Perhaps I think something happened because whatever.
That's what the discussion is about. (0.5) (Class 1, October 13, 2000)

Here, the instructor not only explains the terms analysis and discussion, but also

demonstrates how these sense-making activities can be done.

146
 Izzat returned the journals in Week 7. Although she provided written feedback,

she did not grade them. She told her students that she wanted to evaluate their journals

after they had developed some familiarity with the writing task and that she first wanted

to see how they would write without her support.

After reading the second set of the students' journals, Izzat provided positive

feedback to all the classes. For example, she said in Class 3:

Excerpt 4.23

Izzat: One thing we uh: (1.2) do the quiz (0.9) is uh your journals? (1.0) Uh: (0.7) excellent.
A:nd uh: you understood what I meant by analyze and discuss. (0.5) And uh: I enjoyed
reading all of them very much. Uh: I stayed up until ahmost four o'clock this morning.
(0.5) If they were boring, I would have fallen asleep. So - that tells you how much I
enjoyed reading your journals. (0.5) And 1 hope you uh keep up the good work? There's
one more journal to go, (0.6) and uh in terms of writing, there's a report - to go - in the
end. It's getting very close to - a report kind of - writing. Okay? It's excellent. (Class 3,
October 27, 2000)

In this excerpt, the instructor evaluates the students' writings positively and encourages

them to "keep up the good work" (October 27, 2000). Koyuki said after this class that she

was glad to know that she was on the right track. This comment suggests that the above

feedback seemed to have helped validate students' task performances.

4.2.5.3 TA's Modeling of the Oral Presentation Task

In October, Izzat, who believes in modeling, asked Abraham to make a model

presentation for their students in all the three sections of Language Fieldwork. Abraham

chose to present a research article by Margaret Early (1992) on ESL students' perceptions

of being schooled in an L2. To provide some background information, although the

students knew that Abraham was going to make a model presentation on a certain day,

none of them knew what he was going to present. Thus, they had not read the article.

During the first semester, all of Abraham's lessons took place in one of the classrooms in

147
Keishin House. Abraham made his model presentations in the last week of October, two

weeks prior to the first day of the student presentations. For his presentation, Abraham

produced overhead transparencies and handouts with Microsoft PowerPoint.

4.2.5.3.1 Explaining the Value of the Task

Before starting his presentation, Abraham explained the value of the oral

presentation in university settings. For example, he said in one of the three classes:

Excerpt 4.24

We've talked a little bit about this before but - unfortunately or fortunately -
presentations are a really important part - of classes at WPU. Uh: almost - every
single class- course I've taken at WPU and my old university - required me to give
presentations. So: it's one of those skills that we need to work on - as uh students.
(Class 3, October 26, 2000)

Likewise, he said in another class:

Excerpt 4.25

We've talked a little bit about this before but (0.6) one of the (0.9) the cultural things
that happens at WPU and most Canadian universities is is that- (0.4) one of the - very
popular activities that professors like to ask their students to do is to make a presentation.
(0.5) Umm (0.5) it's something that we do more and more (to) become university
students in North America, - and to become Masters, and PhDs. We start
presenting our work. It's - part of the academic life. (Class 1, October 26, 2000)

In fact, students were evaluated on oral presentations for most of the Keishin

courses. For example, a course on popular media required students to make several

presentations which counted for approximately 60 percent toward the final grade (see

Excerpt 7.17 in Chapter 7). Moreover, one of the major goals of the pre-departure

orientation program organized by the director of the Keishin program was to help

students "learn how to prepare and deliver an effective presentation" (course outline).

Additionally, fifteen students in Jamal's class at ELI jointly decided to do an oral

presentation as one of their course assignments when the instructor told them at the

beginning of the course that they could choose assignments that they considered

148
meaningful for their own learning. These suggest that oral presentations were considered

not only by the teachers and students of the Keishin program but also by other members

of the WPU community to be important academic tasks that university students needed to

learn. Here, it is important to note that in the above excerpt, Abraham used the first

person plural pronouns (i.e., we, our), which indexed his identity as a student (see Ochs,

1996, 2002).

4.2.5.3.2 Explaining Choice of Presentation Topic

After explaining the value of the oral presentation task, Abraham explained why

he chose to present Early's work:

Excerpt 4.26

And -1 originally wanted to present my own research. But - because I'm a new Master's
well - kind of new Master's student, my research isn't finished yet. So if I present my
research you will only get 50 percent of the full research. So: what 1 did is I try to - find -
someone else's research from a- from an article - which uh is very similar to the kind of
research that I'm going to do. Uh I also tried to find something that maybe interesting
for you guys as well. (Class 2, October 26, 2000)

Notice that in this example, Abraham referred to himself as a "kind of new Master's

student." Similarly, in Class 2, he referred to himself as a "half new MA student." Also,

in the above excerpt, Abraham states that he tried tofindsomething which is both similar

to the kind of the research that he is planning to do and interesting for his Keishin

students. Moreover, in his Class 2 presentation, the final one of the three, he said that he

tried to choose something interesting and a little similar to what the students were doing,

thereby making his presentation topic more relevant to the audience.

4.2.5.3.3 Discussing the Gap in the Literature

A few minutes into his presentation, Abraham told the class that by reviewing

previous studies, Margaret Early identified an under-explored area that needs more

149
research attention. In other words, he described how the researcher "created a research

space" (Swales & Feak, 1994), which was accompanied by this written material on the

OHP:

The Situation: ESL Students in Vancouver

• There has been an increase in the number of ESL students in Vancouver

• Research on ESL students' academic achievements has been limited

• The challenge of academic language has not been explored enough

• There have been too many drop-outs and scholastic failures

Notice how Abraham weaves the first two sentences into his discourse in the following

excerpt:

Excerpt 4.27

In 1992 - Margaret Early noticed that "research on EL- ESL students' academic
achievement have been limited." In other words she looked at the research which has
been done. And she noticed that - not many people that studies how ESL students
succeed - academically or if they succeed academically. So that's one of the things we
do as researchers. We usually try to find a- a topic which nobody else has talked
about or - we think we should talk about because no one has talked about it. A:nd
she noticed that - "the challenge of academic language has not been explored enough."
(Class 2, October 26, 2000)

Here, the two sentences are embedded in the speaker's oral discourse as reported

thoughts which follow the reporting verb "notice." As we will see in the next section,

reported thought was one of the most salient features of Abraham's model presentation.

Intriguingly, in Excerpt 4.26, Abraham provides background information about the action

of identifying a gap in the literature that needs to befilled.This is metadiscourse about

how to conduct research. Thus, in the above excerpt, presentational discourse about the

propositional content of the article and instructional discourse about research procedures

are interwoven. This kind of intertextuality was characteristic of the entire presentation as

150
Abraham chose to explain how to do research and presentations as well as present the

content of the article. In this sense, Abraham's presentation served dual functions.

4.2.5.3.4 Reporting Other Voices

As a presentation of a research article, Abraham's activity involved taking on the

roles of the researcher and participants and reporting their voices. For example, he

performed role-playing to report some of the students' responses to the researcher's

questions. In the following excerpt, as the presenter, Abraham first described the action

of the researcher and her participants. Then he changed his voice to ask a question as the

researcher of the study. This is followed by another utterance that Abraham makes again

as the presenter. He then changed his voice again, responding to the question as a

student-participant. Finally, he spoke again as the presenter.

Excerpt 4.28

Uh: they talked about the students' perceptions, of their move to Canada, ((holding his
pen in his right hand like a microphone and using another tone of voice)) How did you
feel when you came to Canada, ((back in his regular voice)) Some students were very
happy, some of them were very sad? ((making faces and using a third tone of voice)) Oh
no I don't want to be here, ((back in his voice)) Uh: their feelings about coming to
Canada. (Class 1, October 26, 2000)

Thus, in this example, Abraham spoke through three different voices: namely, the

presenter's voice, the researcher's, and a student's. In the following excerpt, the teacher

reports students' and the researcher's voices:

Excerpt 4.29

Most students were happy. Except for two. Two of them were - nothing- were unhappy.
But they said that they weren't yet comfortable and that- that they still felt umm
Canada is not their home. Maybe I will go back when I'm old. And finally -
remember that she said that she will look in her data and look for themes? (Class 2,
October 27, 2000)

What is salient in this example is use of projection (Halliday, 1994a). According to

Collerson (1994), this can be compared to "the idea of taking on a role and projecting the

151
voice, as stage actors do" (p. 106). This is because people take what others have said

orally or in writing and 'say' it themselves, thus making it part of their own message

(Collerson, 1994). As the following table shows, arguably, there are four occurrences of

projection in the excerpt:

Table 4.2: Reported Speech and Quoted Speech

Projecting clause Projected clause

la they said that they weren't yet comfortable
lb they said that they still felt umm Canada is not their home.
2 (they said) Maybe I will go back when I'm old.
3 she said that she will look in her data and look for themes?

Thefirstexample is a combination of a saying verb and indirect speech'

whereas the second example can be regarded as a combination of a saying verb and direct

speech although it lacks the projecting clause. The third example is a combination of a

saying verb and indirect speech like thefirstone; however, it is different from the others

in that it is a re-projection of the researcher's voice, as evidenced by the use of the word

"remember," which proceeds it.

Moreover, Abraham reported the researcher's thoughts, representing them as if

they were wordings (Halliday, 1994a):

Excerpt 4.30

And the reason why she did this research - was that she had noticed that "there were -
too many dropouts and scholastic failures." ((paraphrases this utterance)) ...Uh - so
she was - thinking - ((in a slightly higher tone)) this is important. We need to do
research about it. ((back in regular tone)) So that was the situation she was in when she
decided okay - I'm gonna do some research. So she decided, - to explore - some
questions. (Class 1, October 27, 2000)

It would be more appropriate to call this as a verbal process because, in Hallidayan Functional Grammar,
"the kind of meaning verbs have is referred to as a process" (Collerson, 1994, p. 18). However, to avoid
possible confusions, I decide, like Derewianka (1998), to use the term verb in this dissertation.
43
The that-clauses in la and lb in Table 4.2 are coordinate to each other and subordinate to the main clause
"they said."

152
What is revealing about this example is that it sheds light on the variety of linguistic

resources that Abraham used to project the researcher's thoughts (Halliday, 1994a). As

Table 4.3 shows, these include a combination of a mental verb (e.g., notice, decide) and

indirect "speech" (#4 & 7) and a combination of a mental verb and "direct speech" (#5 &

6).

Table 4.3: Reported Thought and "Quoted" Thought

Projecting clause Projected clause

4 She had noticed that there were -toomany dropouts and scholastic failures.
5a She was thinking this was important.
5b (She was thinking) We need to do research.
6 she decided okay - I'm gonna do some research.
7 she decided to explore some questions.

Syntactically, 5a can be regarded either as a direct speech or indirect speech;

however, the speaker's changing of the voice suggests that it was intended rather as direct

speech. As Abraham presented the article in narrative form, the use of reported thought

and quoted thought were salient features of the presentation. Here, it should be mentioned

that using different tones of voice was one of the strategies that Izzat said at one of her

interviews a good presenter would do to engage their audience.

4.2.5.3.5 Interaction with the Audience

Another salient part of Abraham's presentation was interacting with the audience.

In fact, at the beginning, he told the students in all the three sections to feel free to ask

questions during the presentation:

Excerpt 4.31

I will invite you to do during the presentation if you have any questions, please ask me.
No problems. Uh that's part of the presentation. So don't be afraid to ask questions.
(Class 1, October 27, 2000)

153
As can be seen from this example, Abraham considered the audience's active

participation in the form of question asking to be an important part of his presentations.

He also encouraged the students to take notes of their thoughts as they listened to his talk

so that they could discuss them afterwards.

Moreover, Abraham himself asked questions throughout his talk.

Excerpt 4.32

1 Abrah: Any questions until now. It's okay?

2 Ss: ((some smile and nod))

3 Abrah: What do you think. You think it's gonna be an interesting study? (2.0) Yes?

4 Ss: ((some smile and nod))

5 Abrah: I hope so - this is very close to what I want to do. ((laughs)) (October 27, 2000)

In this example, Abraham asks two major kinds of questions. First, he makes two

comprehension checks ("Any questions until now." and "It's okay?") to make sure that

the audience members are following what he has presented so far. This is immediately

followed by two opinion questions .("You think it's gonna be an interesting study?" and

"Yes?"). As the students' nonverbal behaviors (i.e., nods and smiles) indicate, there is

some degree of contingency between the presenter and some of the audience members. In

other words, the TA's use of the questions seems to have facilitated the audience's

involvement in the talk.

4.2.5.3.6 Helping Students Get Started

After his modeling of the task, Abraham gave his students an opportunity to talk

about their fieldwork in small groups. For example, in Class 3, he stated:

Excerpt 4.33

Since we have a little time left, (0.8) Izzat thought this would be a good chance to work
together - and talk about your presentation and your written reports. (0.8) Now -1 know

154
 that you've been working in different places, and uh you should- you have done different
things... She thought you should be able to work together and - and start talking about
some of the problems, - that you are having? And maybe some of the ways other people
are solving, and some of the findings and you have also some of things you discovered.
(0.5) Uh: this is also - important - part of the research as well. When you are doing the
research, (0.5) even though you are doing it alone... I found that talking about your-
your discovery is a big help. Cos I sometimes talk to- to someone and they will say oh:
that's a good idea but did you think about this? Oh no. Okay, ((laughs)) So: that's-1 think
that's what Izzat would like you to do. (Class 3, October 26, 2000)

To facilitate group discussion, Abraham then wrote these questions on the white

board:

What kind of research are you doing?

What are you going to talk about in your presentation?
Have you had any problems?
Do you have any advice?
What have you discovered? (Fieldnotes, October 26, 2000)

Subsequently, students formed four groups of four or five and spent about 30

minutes talking about their fieldwork and presentations. Abraham walked around the

classroom to monitor students' activities and answer their questions. Importantly, most of

the groups discussed the above questions in English. However, this kind of discussion did

not happen in Classes 1 and 2 because the model presentations for these classes took

longer than the teacher had expected and there was little time left. Instead, each member

of these classes had a chance to say a few words about their fieldwork in a whole-class

situation so that they would have a better idea about who was doing what work.

4.2.5.4 Progress Report

Two weeks before the first day of the Semester 2 presentations, Izzat asked each

student group to give an oral progress report on their research:

Excerpt 4.34

Now I'd like to hear, umm (0.6) the progress that you have made with your research?
And umm (0.4) perhaps the way to do is since it's group research, maybe to get into your
groups? .. .And then - discuss with your partner or your group mate uh: (1.0) what you're
going to tell us (as a) class? (0.4) Okay? Again, what I'd like to know is (0.6) uh: (0.6)

155
 how you're doing with your research. You can start by saying this is our topic, -
we've done this, this, this, and uh: umm (0.8) we have - problems or no problems or
(0.9) whatever. Okay? Whatever you feel like saying. (March 2, 2001)

Here again, Izzat provides an explicit explanation for her expectations and demonstrated

how to approach the oral report task. Students were then given time to discuss with their

partners what to report to their teacher and classmates. After approximately 20 minutes,

the instructor started to ask the students to give their progress report. The following

example illustrates how Yoshino and her partner Sachi performed this task:

Excerpt 4.35

1 Yoshi: Our topic is uh idea- we umm what is the (0.5) ideal enviro- environment (0.5) of
food service industry which have live music, [Izzat: Yeah.] (1.1) from musicians and
customers and managers perspective. [Izzat: Umm.] And we did the interview with-
we chose (0.5) two restaurants, [Izzat: Mmm.] mmm which have the live music.
[Izzat: Mmm.] Almost every night. [Izzat: Mmm.] And we did (0.4) interview with
the (0.4) these manager and (0.8) one (1.6)

2 Sachi: one- one - [manager,

3 Yoshi: [manager-

4 Sachi: one musician, and three customers [Izzat: Okay.] in each restaurant. Izzat: Okay.] So
umm (0.5)
5 Yoshi: And now we are summarize the result andfind(1.4) commo- common tendency
[(among them).

6 Izzat: Okay. (0.7) So you're almost done collecting (0.5) your data. So you're now at the
stage of summarizing?

7 Sachi: Yeah. [Almost -

8 Yoshi: [Mmm. [Almost.

9 Izzat: [Analyzing?

10 Yoshi: Almost.

11 Izzat: Perfect! Everybody should have been at this stage, ((laughs)) (Class 3, March 2,

2001)

As the above example shows, just like the portfolio, the oral progress report was a

way for the instructor tofindout about students' activities and provide them with
156
feedback. By this time, Izzat had listened to the progress reports from most of the groups.

Many groups reported that they had not completed their data collection.

Moreover, many student groups shared their problems with the instructor. For

example, after the above interaction, Yoshino and Sachi mentioned that they were not

sure how to decide criteria for categorizing their customer-participants. Izzat commented

that it was not necessary for them to categorize these participants because the purpose of

their research was to gain a few perspectives about what constituted an "ideal" food

service environment of which live music was part. Rei and her partners Kaoru and

Nobue, who were studying the ghettoization of Taiwanese people in Maple Tree City,

mentioned that they were not sure how to ask Taiwanese people questions without

offending them. The following long interaction took place after the three students told the

class that they had come up with one possible way to deal with the problem (i.e., asking

for the help of a Taiwanese student who was sympathetic with the issue).

Excerpt 4.36

1 Kaoru: But (2.2) I wanna ask (1.8) in class,

2 Izzat: Okay.

3 Kaoru: some other (0.7) solutions?

4 Izzat: Yeah. What do you think they can do? (0.6) How else they can solve this
problem. (0.4) You think. (1.2) Yeah you can't ask people to say, (0.8) uh: do you
think you're ghettoized- you are ghettoizing yourselves? (0.5) Umm (0.6) no you
can't. (1.4) How can they approach then. (1.3) Other than (1.5) talking to some
Taiwanese through that guy who (0.8) also understands the problem. (0.4) How
else. (0.8) How else.

5 Nana: I think you can ask like the- question like (1.1) do you feel comfortable (0.5)
when you are with (0.5) Taiwanese, (0.5) and when you are (1.1) when you are
with a friend- people from the same country. [(0.6) (Like Taiwanese.)

6 Rei: Yeah. We're (0.4) actually we're thinking about (1.5) that kind of question too. (0.4)
Thank you.

157
7 Izzat: Umm (0.6) one other way I would (0.5) do it is that uh: (2.2) I would start by saying
that umm I hear (1.2) that people from different cultural groups live in different
areas of Maple Tree City. (0.5) For example, (0.7) start from yourself (0.4) then
you don't hurt the people. It's less likely that you do it. (0.6) If I were you, I
would start by saying that I heard that people from different cultural groups
(0.6) live in different areas in (0.5) Maple Tree City. (0.5) For example, (0.6) uh:
I hear that Japanese Canadians live mostly in [Town A], (0.6) and [Town B].
(0.6) And I hear that uh: Greek Canadians live somewhere near [Street A], (0.6)
and I wonder where Taiwanese people live. Could you tell me.

8 Rei: WOO::

9 ((Many students laugh))

10 Izzat: Could you (xxx) live, [(xx)

11 Kaoru: [Very good.

12 Izzat: Yes. (0.5) Pretend that you don't [know.

13 Kaoru: [Yeah especially -

14 ((many students laugh))

15 Izzat: Yes. Let them tell you.

16 Kaoru: Especially [Izzat: Yeah.] we can use maybe Japanese -

17 Izzat: Yes!

18 Kaoru: - cases?

19 Izzat: because you're Japanese,

20 Rei: [Yeah.

21 Nobu: [Yeah.

22 Izzat: if you start by talking from your- well it's not you, but somebody who are like you -
[Kaoru: Mm] then they'll open to you. If you're a Japanese and start talking about
Chinese, maybe they'll think ((in a different tone)) what do you want to know about
me. ((back in a regular tone)) you know?

23 Nobu: [Yeah.

24 Rei: [Hmm.

25 Kaoru: Yeah.

26 Izzat: That's (always) a good way to say that I hear this and I found out, (0.6) I was

158
 very interested in where Japanese Canadians live because I'm Japanese. And I
found out that, (0.7) they live here and here. (0.5) So I'm wondering if there's
such uh:[(xx)

27 Kaoru: [Pretending, ((laughing))

28 ((other students including Nobue and Rei laugh))

29 Nana: ((jokingly)) I'm just wondering. [Izzat: Yeah.] Just wondering.

30 Izzat: Yeah. I wonder if that happens to Chinese groups too.

31 Rei: Ah:: sugoi. [great]

32 Izzat: Especially when Chinese groups are so complicated. There are people of Mainland
China, there are people from Taiwan, (0.5) there's Chinese people from Hong Kong.
Where do you guys live. (0.7) Do you all live together or you know? (0.7) And then
they will tell you oh no no no. We don't live with the Chinese from mainland China.
We live in [name of town] area.
33 Kaoru: Hmmm

34 Izzat: Then you'll ask them why. (0.7) Why don't you live with Hong Kong people or
people from the Mainland China. (0.9) You always ask why and how questions.
Rather than say do you ghettoize yourselves? Then that's not good. (1.1) If you say
do you ghettoize yourselves, (0.9) you're assuming that they do. (0.5) You know that.
But you don't have to let them know that you know. (0.9) You say, where do you
live, (0.6) and how, and why. Let them tell you. [Kaoru: Mm-hmm]. Then they
won't be hurt. You just asked why. You didn't say you ghettoized. (0.7) You know?

35 Kaoru: Very good.

36 ((Izzat: laughs))

37 Kaoru: Very good. It's like a more (0.7) not interview. But short conversation.

38 Rei: Yeah.

39 ((many students laugh))

40 Izzat: Right. (0.4) Yeah I think that's how I would do it. (Class 1, March 1, 2001)

In Line 4, Izzat restates the problem initially stated by Rei as questions. In Line 5,

Nana tells Rei's group what they could do. Then, Rei responds by saying that they were

thinking the same thing and thanking Nana for the advice. In Line 7, Izzat then tells what

she would do if she were in their situation, modeling the language. Hearing Izzat's idea,

159
Kaoru comments in Lines 16 and 18 on the importance of referring to the cases of

Japanese people living in Canada as "insiders" in bringing up the sensitive topic of

ghettoization. In Lines 19 and 22, Izzat builds on this comment, saying that it would be a

good idea for the students to start by talking about Japanese groups since they are

Japanese. The instructor then demonstrates how she would approach the interview task

once again between Lines 26 and 32. Subsequently, in Line 34, she advises the students

to let their participants tell about the issue themselves without showing their assumptions

about the issue. As Excerpt 4.35 suggests, the progress report was a chance for the

students to obtain advice from their peers (especially active ones like Nana who were not

afraid to speak in class) as well as from the instructor.

4.3 Summary of the Chapter

The focus of this chapter was the environment in which the oral presentation tasks

were situated. In particular, I have examined the institutional and community aspects of

this task environment, including the goals of the course, some of the major values and

practices of the classroom, the teachers' expectations about the task, and their roles as

socializing agents. As we have seen, oral presentations were regarded in the Keishin

program to be an important academic task that university students needed to learn. One of

the most prominent features of Language Fieldwork was that the instructor carefully

organized the course in such a way that students' choices, and therefore, responsibilities

(van Lier, 1996) increased over time (see also Rogoff, 1984). For example, Izzat taught

intercultural communication in thefirstsemester and taught research methods in social

science and education in the second semester. In other words, thefirstsemester course

required the students to study a subject determined by their teacher whereas the second

160
semester course allowed them to choose what to study as it focused on the "how" of

doing research in social sciences and education.

As such, the degree to which students were allowed to make choices about their

presentation tasks increased over time. For the poster project, students had a relatively

limited choice about their tasks because the medium (i.e., poster) and topic (i.e.,

nonverbal communication) of the task were given. For the Semester 1 project, they were

required to make presentations based on their volunteer work and relate this experience to

some aspects of intercultural communication. As such, their roles in thefieldwere those

of volunteers. However, they were relatively free to decide which aspects of the subject

to focus on and to choose what medium to use for their presentation. For the Semester 2

presentation, the students were free to investigate any topic in social science and

education in any way appropriate. Thus, it was for them to decide how to collect data and

what roles to play in thefield.They were also free to use any available medium for their

talk. This was one of the major attempts that the instructor made to gradually hand over

her responsibilities to the students (van Lier, 1988, after Bruner, 1983). Also, the three

presentation tasks were given increasingly more weight in grading. For the poster project,

the students were graded on the content and design of their posters, but they were not

graded on their oral presentations of these products. The Semester 1 presentation counted

10 percent toward the final grade, and the Semester 2 presentation counted 20 percent.

Furthermore, the assignments were sequenced in such a way that the completion of a task

(e.g., journal writing) helped the completion of another (e.g., oral presentation). Thus, to

appropriate Mohan's (2001) words, earlier assignments were structured to build a context

for later ones (see also Collins & Green, 1992).

161
 Moreover, both the instructor and TA assisted their students' accomplishment of

the oral presentation tasks in a number of ways. These included providing the students

with explicit explanations about and models of the tasks, monitoring their progress, and

providing feedback and advice. My examinations of the instructor's and the TA's

classroom and interview discourse suggest that one of the most important features of a

"good" presentation was critical reflection. Students were expected not only to inform the

audience of their experiences and observations, but also to demonstrate their critical

reasoning about them (see Staab, 1986, 1992 for the distinction between informing and

reasoning) by discussing how they related to the content of the course and to their own

future. Izzat and Abraham both saw the oral presentations as important opportunities for

their students to engage meaningfully in academic discourse and content. Another

important feature of a valued presentation seems to have been interaction with the

audience. For example, the instructor encouraged the students not to read their notes so as

to keep their audience interested. Also, during his model presentation, the TA interacted

with his students by asking the students questions. In short, the instructor organized the

course to apprentice her students into the academic culture of the university by providing

them with scaffolded experiences engaging in the valued activities of this culture. In the

next chapter, we will examine how students worked together to accomplish their oral

presentation tasks.

162
 Chapter 5

STUDENT AGENCY AND COLLABORATION IN L2 TASK PREPARATION

5.0 Introduction

The focus of the present chapter is students' task preparation. More specifically,

the chapter will examine how key students and their partners worked together to

accomplish their L2 oral presentations. As we will see later, most of this work took place

out of class time in the absence of their teachers. Thus, I will take a behind-the-scenes

view at students' task-preparatory activities. To yield a holistic understanding of L2 task

preparation, the chapter will document four different groups' activities. In thefirstfew

sections, we will examine the activities in which two groups, Kiku and Nana's group and

Tomo and Koyuki's group, engaged to prepare for their Semester 1 presentations. As we

will see later, these groups stood in stark contrast to each other in terms of grouping and

field experience. In thefinalsection, I will examine the activities of Rei's group and

Ichiro's group, both of which had activities that differed greatly from those of the first

two groups.

5.1 Kiku and Nana's Task Preparation

For their fieldwork, both Kiku and Nana chose to go to the university's Japanese

language classes as volunteers who helped undergraduate students learning Japanese.

Kiku explains this choice in his term paper, entitled "As a Japanese," as follows:

Excerpt 5.1

This term, while I was attending LFW 201,1 experienced many people voluntarily
wanting to help my understanding of "real" Canadian culture, both at WPU and around
this city. As a result of this, I immediately decided that I wanted to volunteer in
Japanese classes at W P U in return for what the people in this city, in many
instances, had done for me. (December 1, 2000, emphasis added)

163
 Kiku, as a native speaker of Japanese, saw going to Japanese classes as a way of

repaying the kindness of the Canadian people who had helped his learning about

Canadian culture (December 27, 2000). Nana wrote in her second field journal, "I was

curious why the students want to study Japanese. They might be interested in something

concerned about Japan. And, what's Japan like for them is my most interesting thing"

(October 19, 2000). In addition to attending three Japanese classes, Kiku and Nana, along

with several other Keishin students, were asked by the instructor and her TA to meet with

their Japanese-as-a-second-language (henceforth JSL) students out of class time and help

them prepare for their presentations. More specifically, Keishin students were asked to

correct JSL students' pronunciation. Thus, Kiku and Nana's task for their intercultural

communication course was to report orally on their experience of helping learners of

Japanese as conversation partners and their own learning and discovery through this

experience (see also Kobayashi, 2003).

5.1.1 Getting Started

In this section, we will examine two major task-related activities that Kiku and

Nana engaged in before they started to work as a group: negotiating task definitions and

requirements in class time and choosing partners.

5.1.1.1 Negotiating Task Definitions and Requirements

Kiku and Nana worked together with two other students who were volunteering

for the university's Japanese classes, Urara and Yukari. Note that at this point, students
44

had not formed "official" groups to do their oral presentations. A few seconds into the

group discussion, Nana expresses her concern about the presentation.

Urara was a second-year law major and Yukari was a second-year sociology major.

164
Excerpt 5.2

1 Nana: I was worried about - how can I (2.9) how can I (1.6) presentation about my
volunteering? Because (1.3) my volunteering is just (1.0) help-just help (1.3) stu-
study Japanese? So =

2 Yuka: = Yeah I think so too.

3 Nana: So far I couldn't find what I gonna find what I learned from Japanese students? -
Because I was so - concentrate on (0.7) help them just teaching En- teaching
Japanese students? - So I just worried about - what 1 found- what I found (1.4) during
helping him, during helping them? (0.7) So how can I present (0.4) my volunteering.
(1.0)

4 Kiku: Hmm. ((nods))

5 Yuka: Through the volunteering I just find that uh: learning another (language) is very
difficult. That's all. ((laughs))
6 Nana: ((laughs)) (October 26, 2000)

In Line 1, Nana makes a problem statement and asks for advice. Obviously, her

concern here is that because she was always involved in conversations with JSL students,

she could not pay attention to what is going in the classes, and was thus unsure what her

findings were from the experience and how to undertake the presentation task. In other

words, Nana was concerned about the participant-observation nature of the volunteer

work that prevented her from observing the classroom environment as a researcher. To

deal with this situation, Nana obtained the teacher's permission and attempted to audio-

record her own interactions with students during her last volunteering session. She was

planning to start recording after obtaining the students' permission. However, she was so

involved in conversations that she unfortunately forgot to turn on the recorder. Although

other students joined Nana in thinking that it is difficult to be a conversation partner and a

observer at the same time, this did not result in extended discussion. As the above excerpt

shows, the topic of the discussion shifted when Yukari started to talk about her own

thought in Line 5. However, a few minutes later, Nana brings up the same issue again:

165
Excerpt 5.3

1 Nana: If we do - presentation, like I think - presentation including uh - references, -

interviews, (0.5) like research, but in-1 think in my case - like our volun- our
volunteering, we cannot include researches, and references, - and whatever - like I
think - presentation should - based on some researches or interviews to other -
[students,

2 Kiku: [U:mm I don't think so in this case.

3 Nana: But in this case we are thinking about deeply, between Japanese and Canadian - how
do they communicate or how do they helping each other, in - to teach English
Japanese, Japanese English. So we're thinking about deeply, I mean - like cultural
communication, or - whatever nonverbal communication? So we think-1 think (1.0)
we have to reference (1.1) u:[mm

4 Kiku: [I think we- (0.5) u:mm if you want, you can use those references I guess. Cos -
umm you have a some points, - to ar- (argue), in your presentation and then - to
support those arguments maybe you find uh some references or materials in -
libraries. (1.5) Like (xx) what- why do they uh: feel difficulty (0.8) u:mm speaking -
honorific - keigo. [honorifics] (0.9) So: maybe - you'll find a some references in the
library but (0.5) if you want - you can find a: book but I think we don't have to
(use) - references. Do you think? Because the title (of the assignment) is uh:
"Field Experience" [not volunteers - (it's just)
45

5 Nana: [Yeah.

6 Kiku: I think - yeah it's okay even if it's coming from our uh: (0.6) u:mm experiences.
(1.3) it's- it's kind of like uh formally - it's gonna - become uh: formal uh: (0.5)
if you support your arguments. (1.1) U:mm (0.6) Yeah. (1.0) I'm thinking in that
way now.

7 Nana: How about - doing research by myself. I mean (0.5) like make questionnaire, and
do it, (2.8) let- let students do - questionnaire,
8 Kiku: I think that's good.

9 Nana: You think it's work? (3.2) But (2.2) in my opinion like (0.8) doing presentation
means like researches, references, (1.2) yeah so I think like (0.6) oh I have to do
some question to ask students?

10 Ura: But you can say what you found in your experience just =

11 Kiku: = Yeah. (2.8)

12 Nana: But for me it is so difficult to thinking about - what found in Japanese class -1 just
help them teach Japanese (0.8) uh: that's all I help -1 helped them. (1.4) umm (1.0)
Because so far I was so concentrate on - help (0.5) teach Japanese, and I don't
have any (0.5) space-1 don't have any room (0.6) in my mind? Like (1.0) I was so

45
When asked later, what Kiku meant here was research, not "volunteers."

166
 uh::: I was so (2.0) uh:: nervous and - teaching Japanese and (0.9) so like -

13 Kiku: [Yeah.

14 Nana: [even 1 couldn't take a notes for me? (1.0) In my Japanese class? (0.8) (Class 3,
October 26, 2000)

In Line 1, Nana explicitly states what it means to do an oral presentation. For her,

doing presentation entails using references and conducting interviews. She goes on to say

that because the presentation for Izzat's course is about her own volunteering, she cannot

use references or interview data. Kiku then says in Line 2 that the presentation does not

require referencing or interviewing. In the following turn, Nana disagrees with Kiku,

saying that she thinks that references should be used because they are seriously

considering issues related to intercultural communication in the course. Kiku then

discusses using references as an option, as evidenced by use of the mental verb "want" in

the if-clause and the modal "can" in the main clause (Mohan, 1986). Kiku discusses the

advantages of using references for the presentation, and says again that he thinks that it is

optional because the assignment is called "Field Experience." Interjected by Nana's

utterance, Kiku continues to say that it would be okay even if the presentation is based on

their own experience and that it will become formal if they make arguments and support

them. Nana then asks the others if they think it is a good idea for her to conduct research

by using a questionnaire. In the following line, Kiku responds, saying that it is a good

idea. Nana further elaborates by saying that since she sees doing a presentation as

involving presenting research findings and using references, she thinks that she needs to

ask JSL students some questions. This, Nana explained, was the kind of presentation that

she had been exposed to as a sociology student at Keishin University.

167
 In Line 10, Urara says, "But you can say what you found in your experience,"

echoing what Kiku has said earlier. Kiku agrees with this in the following line. Then,

Nana discusses again in Line 12 how difficult it was to participate in small group

activities and observe JSL students' behaviors at the same time. Needless to say, this is a

trade-off of which participant-observers should be aware in order to make informed

decisions in their research (see Spradley, 1980).

In Excerpt 5.4, the students perform a number of acts. First, with Kiku's

prompting in Line 1, Nana tells the others what she wrote in her field journal. Kiku

suggests that she could discuss why there are many Asian students in the Japanese class,

and says that she may be able to "find some support and arguments." Nana builds

contingently on this utterance by adding possible information sources, "from just guess,

or from books or from researches." Kiku answers that she could use references or

conduct interviews with the Japanese teachers in order to strengthen her argument, but he

is not sure if it is a good idea to use guesses. In the following line, Yukari says that she

found it very difficult to write about her volunteering in her journal without giving a

reason. Kiku responds by saying "yeah."

Excerpt 5.4

1 Kiku: So what did you write about -fieldexperience in your papers.

2 Nana: Okay. Okay. I just - wrote (2.1) today I met ((laughs)) <Ura: laughs> I went to the
Japanese 201 class and uh (1.0) There were so many Asian students, in the class and
(1.0) they speak- they spoke Japanese well?

3 Kiku: Then - maybe you can write - you can write about the reason why- why there
are many- there are many Asian students in the Japanese class. Maybe - you'll find
some support and arguments =

4 Nana: = from - from just guess, or from books or from [researches.

5 Kiku: [U:mm from uh: - could be interviews, (0.6) umm - yeah I think yeah some books,
(2.3) or asking your Japanese teachers, (2.2) umm I don't know if it's okay to just

168
 using your guesses, (1.2) then: (2.8)

6 Yuka: I think it was very hard to write a- a journal about my volunteering [experience,
7 Kiku: [Yeah.

8 Nana: What did you write - to journal- for journal.

9 Ura: My feeling ((laughs)) just -

10 Nana: What did you feel.

11 Kiku: U:mm - you don't worry-1 think you don't have to uh: worry too much about - a lot
of things about your - you know - concern about (x) cos ((reading the task
description)) this says uh "oral presentation is a sharing, sharing of your volunteer
experiences." Maybe I think it's- Izzat - maybe doesn't think take it as a so serious
presentation.

12 Yuka: H::mm academic!

13 Kiku: Not the academic thing, (maybe) it's - my opinion though - reading from this (1.7)
statements (xx) yeah, ((reading the course outline)) "You will tell the class, what-
what you did as a volunteer - what you learned - what significance this learning will
have for your future." (0.8) It's sort of like your (0.9) hmm - from your
perspective. <Nana: hmm> We don't have to borrow so many books from library,
(0.6) (not many) references. I think so. Do you think so?

14 Yuka: Hmm.

15 Nana: Umm I think it depends on a person? Like - if person want to do (2.0) just tell -

what they do or (1.6) maybe - another wants to do research,

16 Yuka: Uh:

17 Kiku: Umm ((nods))

18 Nana: and references books- some books and do well presentation? <Kiku: Hmm> So I
just worried about (2.8) if there (2.0) if - there are so: many differences between (1.5)
the person and person, for the same volunteering, (2.8)

19 Kiku: Exactly right. - Yeah. First things we have to do is anyway to ask Izzat [-

20 Nana: [((laughs))

21 Ura: ((laughs))

22 Kiku: if uh: we have to use uh references or something - [but

23 Nana: [Yeah. (Class 3, October 26, 2000)

169
 In Line 8, Nana asks the others what they wrote in their journals. Urara answers

that she simply wrote her feelings. Nana then attempts to clarify Urara's meaning.

However, before she gets Urara's response, Kiku takes a turn and tells her that she does

not have to worry too much. He then starts to read the description of the oral presentation

task given by the instructor and comments that the instructor may not see the task as a

very serious presentation. In the following line, Yukari utters "academic" with an

enthusiastic tone. As informed by my subsequent conversation with her, Yukari produced

this utterance to show her understanding that what Kiku meant was that the instructor

might not think of the presentation as "academic." In the following line, Kiku makes the

meaning clearer by saying "not the academic thing," and continues to read aloud the task

description. When asked what he meant by "academic," Kiku answered that since the

task was not to present research findings, but to talk about his volunteer experience, he

saw the use of references optional. Recall that Abraham has given a model presentation

earlier in the lesson. During this modeling, he used the word "academic" to refer to the

oral presentation task. Thus, the TA's notion of academic seems to have differed from

that of at least Kiku's and Yukari's. After reading the task description, Kiku comments

that they do not need to borrow books from the library, and invites the others to

comment. While Yukari agrees, Nana challenges this view. From Line 15 to 18, Nana

states that it is up to individuals whether they choose to "do research" and/or use

references for their presentations. Interestingly, she comments that she is worried about

this individual difference. Nana commented after the class, "I'm thinking like, what if I

did not use references or conduct interview and others did" (October 16, 2000). Finally,

Kiku suggests that they should ask Izzat about this.

170
5.1.1.2 Choosing Partners

In November, students started to think about who to work with for the

presentation. It was not mandatory to work in pairs or small groups; however, since it

was strongly encouraged by their instructor and TA, they all chose to do so. During our

casual conversations, Nana repeatedly expressed her strong desire to work with Kiku, for

she believed that she could learn a great deal from him. But Nana was first hesitant to ask

Kiku if he wanted to work with her. This was because she was afraid that he might be

interested in working with someone else as there were several others who had the same

volunteer work that she thought could contribute more to Kiku's learning. Despite Nana's

apprehension, Kiku asked Nana to work with him for the presentation. As Kiku

commented, having studied in the same class during the ELI program in the summer, they

knew each other well after all.

Subsequently, Nana invited Shingo, her partner with whom she did group project

work for another course, to join them. Nana said that she had developed a good working

relationship with him. Shingo was a second year Japanese literature major. Although he

was not as vocal as Kiku and Nana either in or out of classes, Shingo was regarded by

Izzat and many of his classmates as a very able and self-assured individual and a good

English writer. He decided to take part in the joint exchange program not only to improve

his English skills and develop a better understanding of Canadian culture, but also to

cultivate his emotional strength and fortitude. Shingo enjoyed watching sports. He did not

participate in the ELI program.

171
5.1.2 Kiku, Nana, and Shingo's Group Preparation for the Task

In this section, we will take a behind-the-scene look at the peer collaboration in

which Kiku, Nana, and Shingo engaged to accomplish their end-of-semester presentation.

The three students met five times (more than 13 hours in total) to prepare for the task,

which was scheduled for November 16th. This preparation included sub-activities such as

negotiating task definition and teacher expectations, sharing experience, making a

PowerPoint document, and rehearsing and performance-coaching.

46

5.1.2.1 Negotiating Task Definition and Teacher Expectations

Five days before their in-class presentation, Kiku, Nana, and Shingo had their first

meeting in one of the classrooms in the Keishin Building. Kiku wrote in his term paper as

follows:

Excerpt 5.5

Having discussed our results and perceptions many times, we made our final presentation
about our experiences in volunteering in Japanese classes. During the process, we
discussed and made sure we clearly presented our collective experiences. As a result of
this, we came up with some important or significant situations that had been commonly
experienced between us. (December 1, 2000)

As we will see later, my observation also suggested that the students spent a great

amount of time, especially in early phases of their preparation, sharing their field

experiences and trying to make meaning out of them, in other words, negotiating the

possible content of their presentation. However, this was not the first thing that they did

as a group.

As Excerpt 5.6 shows, following Kiku's initiation in Line 1, the students started

their preparation by reading the description of the presentation task given in the course

46
Surprisingly, most groups explained why they chose to use PowerPoint for their presentations, saying
that they had seldom used an overhead projector themselves or seen their professors use one in Japan.

172
outline and negotiating the definition of the task and teacher expectations. Because of

this, spoken (mostly LI) and written (L2) languages are interwoven in the excerpt.

Excerpt 5.6

1 Kiku: Are (0.5) moo ikkai mita hoo gayoku nan ((referring to the course outline))
[Shouldn't we look at that once again?]

2 Nana: Atta. Aa kore ne. ((produces her copy of the course outline)) (0.6) [I found it. This
one, right?]

3 Kiku: Purezen - mo nanio mananda kayan na. = [The presentation is supposed to be

41

about what we learned, right?]

4 Nana: ((reading from the course outline)) = "Oral presentation of field experience. (0.5)
Oral presentation is sharing - of your volunteering experiences."
5 Shin: Un. [Yeah.]

6 Nana: ((reading from the course outline)) "You will tell the class - what you learned
as a volunteer. What you learned and what significance - significance this learning -
will have for - your future." Nani? [What?] (1.8) Will have for fu- uh - future.

7 Kiku: Future?

8 Nana: Future?

9 Kiku: Oretachi no shoorai ni dooyaku ni tatte iku ka tte kotoya na. [How it will contribute

to our future, right?]

10 Shin: Un. [Yeah.]

11 Kiku: Kore - wasure gachi ni nari sooyan na. - Chotto aa our future ne. Wakatta. [We
might forget this. - Our future. Okay.]
12 ((several turns later))

13 Nana: "Your presentation - have to be organized and interesting. (0.5) You are encouraged
to - use audiovisual and graphic materials (0.6) in your presentation and - to talk (0.6)
from them." Talk ga nan ka futomoji ni natteruyo. (0.7) [The word talk is bold-
faced.]

14 Kiku: [/n? [Hmm?]

15 Nana: Talk from them. (2.5)

16 Kiku: Oh - kore nani? [What is this?] Your presen- your -

Many students used the Japanese word "purezen," a shortened loan word for "presentation."

173
17 Nana: "Encouraged to use audiovisual and graphic materials - [in your presentation."

18 Kiku: [Sonnan PowerPointyan na: [Definitely PowerPoint, right?]

19 Nana: PowerPoint. PowerPoint tsukatta hoo ga ii kedo tooku ga mein yayo tte koto ne. -
[This means it's better to use PowerPoint, but talking is primary, right?] "That is do
not read from your notes." Eeeeee? Anki nan? (1.9) [What? We must memorize
lines?]

20 Shin: Demoyonde -yondetayan. [But they were reading from notes, weren't they.]

21 Kiku: Un - Yondeta zo. [Yeah - they were.]

22 Nana: E soo nant [Oh really?] (November 11, 2000)

%

Notice that Kiku uses the phrase once again in Line 1. This is because Kiku had

read the task description earlier in the class discussion that he had with Nana and two

other students (see Section 5.1.1.1). Thus, Kiku continued a long conversation about the

task with Nana. At the same time, this was the first time for Kiku, Nana, and Shingo to

negotiate task definitions as a group. In Line 19, Nana expresses her surprise about the

sentence "Do not readfromyour notes" written in the course outline. Shingo expresses

his doubt whether they really must not do so, referring intertextually to one of the

presentations given in the previous week, which is then echoed by Kiku in the following

turn. However, a few turns later, the students agreed that they should not regard that

performance as a "tehon ,A9

or copybook (see Chapter 4) as the presenters lacked

confidence and interaction with the audience. Kiku, Nana, and Shingo also agreed that
50

they should and could give their presentation without reading from notes since it was

about something they experienced themselves and therefore had some authority and

confidence. In other words, the students as a group negotiated the teacher's expectations

48
Nana did not see the presentation because she was absentfromthe class.
49
This Japanese word is defined by Singleton (1998) as a "model or pattern for practice" (p. 357).
50
Likewise, Zappa-Hollman (2002) reports that earlier presentations served as models for later ones.

174
about the oral presentation and assessed the demands of this particular task, considering

other groups' performance as well as their own knowledge and abilities. Based on this

negotiation and assessment, they oriented themselves to the task (Talyzina, 1981, cited in

Roebuck, 2000).

After the group meeting, Kiku commented that he remembered Izzat explaining

the importance of looking at the course outline from time to time. Excerpt 5.6 is only
51

part of the extended interaction the students had on this day to create states of

intersubjectivity or shared understanding of the task (Rommetveit, 1974). Van Lier

(1996) states that when intersubjectivity is achieved, "participants are jointly focused on

the activity and its goals, and they draw each other's attention into a common direction"

(p. 161). After this discussion, the students decided that they would do their presentation

without reading from notes. Then, they shared theirfieldexperience, looking at their

journals written in English. By this time, Izzat had read and returned two of the three

journals with her comments. Examination of her classroom discourse as well as her

comments on students' journals suggests that she encouraged the students to go beyond

mere descriptions of their activities (see Chapter 4), and to relate their field experiences

with the course materials and their own future. Here, it is important to note that the group

discussion on this day was conducted primarily in Japanese.

5.1.2.2 Sharing Experience and Negotiating Content

As Kiku's writing above suggests, Kiku, Nana, and Shingo shared their

experiences and observations and negotiated the possible content of their presentation in

early phases of their preparation. First, they each shared their experiences and

51
Also, as we will see in Chapter 7, Kiku had learned this lesson from his experience with the poster
session.

175
observations, looking at theirfieldjournals. For example, Kiku shared this experience

with his group members:

Excerpt 5.7

In the conversation, I recognized one thing that I felt a little uncomfortable with. That
was that ((referring to his conversation partners)) they sometimes talked with each other
in Chinese when either of two could not find out some phrases that they really wanted to
use in the sentence. Then I felt uneasy about exactly what they were talking about, of
course, I could guess vaguely what they were talking about because of the situation. But
if it was other cases, I might not be able to take a guess at all. Therefore, I reconsidered
that I should not do the same thing as they did in case I talk with people who do not
understand my language because I felt uncomfortable. (October 5, 2000)

As a result of such sharing, they came up with a list of "things that happened."

This was followed by extended negotiation of meaning. As reported earlier, the instructor

repeatedly advised her students in class that they go beyond mere descriptions of their

volunteer activities. In other words, students were encouraged to reflect critically on their

own experiences. As such, Kiku, Nana, and Shingo negotiated what lessons about

intercultural communication they could draw from their listed experiences and

observations.

Excerpt 5.8

1 Kiku: Eetto tsugi wa kantonii o (0.4) shabe rare ta. [Well, the next one is I suffered because
they spoke Cantonese (to each other).]

2 Shin: ((laughs))

3 Nana: El Shabe rare ta! [You suffered from their speech (in Cantonese)?]
4 Kiku: Un. Shabe rare ta. (0.8) Yatte giseesha ya mon. [Yeah. I suffered from their speech
(in Cantonese). Because I'm the victim.]

5 Nana: Aa soo iu koto ne. Don na koto ga ieruya ro. [Oh I see. What can we say from
this?]

6 Shin: Mm (0.5) kantonii o shabe rare ta - ne. [Mm - you suffered because they spoke
Cantonese (to each other.) Okay. ]

7 Kiku: Jibun ga gyaku da ttara aite no kimochi ga wakaru ttoka iu kanjiyaro na. [ I think
we can say something like we could understand how our co- participant might

176
 feel if we put ourselves in her place.]

8 Nana: Un. [Yeah]

9 Shin: So ya na. Jibun ga moshi (0.5) shabe ttara aite ga doo omoo katteiu no o
kangaeru no ga taisetsu datte koto ga kore de wakattatteiu ka. [Right. Maybe we
can say something like this experience helped us understand the importance of
considering how our co-participant might feel if we spoke (to each other) in a
language she doesn't understand.]

10 Nana: Un. [Yeah.] (November 11, 2000)

In this example, the students are negotiating the meaning of Kiku's experience

where he felt uncomfortable because his conversation partners started to speak to each

other in Cantonese in a small group situation. In Line 1, Kiku initiates discussion about

this experience, which is followed by a brief negotiation between Nana and Kiku about

Kiku's Japanese expression. Interestingly, Kiku states in Line 4 that he said that he

"suffered" from his conversation partners' speech in Cantonese because he was the

"victim," indicating the uncomfortable feelings that he had, not quite sure what they were

saying. In Line 5, Nana shows her understanding of Kiku's meaning and then reinitiates

the discussion about Kiku's experience. In Line 7, Kiku suggests that the group could

argue that people could understand how someone might feel if they put themselves in her

place. Shingo then builds on Kiku's utterance in Line 9, saying, "this experience helped

us understand the importance of considering how someone might feel if we speak (to

each other) in a language that she does not understand." Notice that this is a more general

statement than Kiku's initial statement in hisfieldjournal: "I reconsidered that I should

not do the same thing as they did in case I talk with people who do not understand my

language because I felt uncomfortable" (Excerpt 5.7). Thus, the students as a group drew

a lesson about their subject matter from their group member's particular experience

through joint negotiation of meaning. After discussing all the things on their list this way,

177
Kiku, Nana, and Shingo chosefiveexperiences and/or observations that they considered

most important. However, considering the time constraint, they later decided to focus

only on three experiences/observations. In these processes of joint meaning making, the

students spoke mainly in their LI.

5.1.2.3 Collaborative Dialogue in Making a PowerPoint Document

In their group meetings, the three students not only negotiated the content of their

presentation, but also the language of it. Relevant to this is Swain's (e.g., 2000, 2001a;

see also Swain & Lapkin, 1998) notion of collaborative dialogue, which refers to

knowledge constructing dialogue in which learners make efforts to use language to solve

L2 problems or to construct L2 knowledge (Swain, 2001a). This type of dialogue took

52

place most frequently during their third meeting, when Kiku, Nana, and Shingo started to

create a PowerPoint document for their presentation.

5.1.2.3.1 Negotiating L2 Form

One page of the Kiku, Nana, and Shingo's PowerPoint document initially looked

as follows:

How would we be in the future?

(In this kind of unexpected situations)

Creative

Flexibility

Calm down (November 13, 2000, emphasis added)

In Excerpt 5.9, Kiku, who is working on the computer, wonders whether their use

of the word flexibility is accurate in this context, saying that "the others are adjectives" in

Line 4. Eventually, they come up with the adjective, flexible, which is a more accurate

In the present study, students often solved LI problems. For example, they asked each other how to write
5 2

Chinese characters in taking notes.

178
word choice here. However, one problem remains unnoticed: that is, "Calm down." Kiku

asks Nana and Shingo if "Calm down" is okay in Line 8. Nana then answers in Line 11

that she thinks it is okay.

Excerpt 5.9

1 Nana: Flexibility dayo sore wa. [Flexibility. [That should beflexibility.Flexibility.]

2 Kiku: [Akan wa - kore. [This is no good.]

3 Nana: E-? [What?]

4 Kiku: Keiyooshi janai to akan, ato no ga keiyooshiyakara. [It should be an adjective

because the others are adjectives.] (0.9)

5 Shin: U:mm(10.3)

6 Kiku: Soo sum to = [So it's]

7 Shin: = Flexible?

8 Kiku: Ya na kore de ii ka na. [Yeah it is. Does this look OK.] (3.1)

9 Nana: Calm [down? -

10 Kiku: [Doo? [What do you think?] (0.8) mm:

11 Nana: Hal Ii n ja nai kashira. [Yeah. I think it's okay.] (November 13, 2000)

It seems that at least Kiku thought that "calm down" is an adjective in this

context. In fact, three days later, in their presentation, Kiku used the word as follows:

Excerpt 5.10
Maybe - some kind of ideas like crea- creative ideas (0.6) or (2.0) so you can be flexible
(0.6) and then you can be calm down even if you are faced to that kind of emergency
(0.9) emergency. (November 16, 2000, emphasis added)

His use of "be" before the word indicates that Kiku used the word calm as an adjective,

rather than as a verb. He might have learned the phrase "calm down" as an idiom and

extended it to a situation where the "down" is inappropriate. The grammatically accurate

use of the word "calm" here could be any of these (with #3 being perhaps the most

179
appropriate in this context): (1) You can calm down; (2) You can be calmed down; or
53

(3) You can be calm. But "calm down" seems to be used as a single lexeme here. 54

The revised version of the page looked like this:

How would we be in the future?

(In this kind of unexpected situations)

Creative

- Flexible

Calm down (November 13, 2000, emphasis added)

In short, the students were able to jointly solve the first problem in Excerpt 5.9,

but missed the second one in this case. It should be noted that this type of collaborative

dialogue was conducted primarily in Japanese and took place while the students were

making their PowerPoint document. In other words, the students used Japanese to solve

L2 problems as they jointly created a written text (Anton & DiCamilla, 1998).

Additionally, they often used their bilingual electronic dictionaries to look up English

words and phrases.

5.1.2.3.2 Negotiating L2 Lexical Choices

Excerpt 5.11

1 Nana: Self-centered no hoo ga ii ka na [I wonder if the word "self-centered" would be a

better choice.] (0.7)

2 ((several turns later))

3 Kiku: Demo selfish no hoo ga minna ni wakariyasuku nail [But don't you think the word
"selfish" is easier for everybody to understand?]
4 Nana: Son nara kaeyooya. [Why don't we use the word instead.] ((enunciating syllables as
she types)) le:ss (3.4) sel - fi - sh.
53
My observation suggests that Kiku's intended meaning was if you have flexibility, you can be (i.e.,
remain) calm during an emergency.
54
This use of calm down was made again in Semester 2 (see Chapter 8).

180
5 Kiku: Wakariyasusa mo are ya kedo ammari kotoba ga yasuku natte mo akan nen mon
na. [It's important that we use words that are easy to understand. But we don't
want to make our speech sound cheap.]

6 Nana: SOO. [RIGHT.]

7 Kiku: (0.7) Sore ni sa kono keesu tte (1.2) self-centered mo ii kotoba yato omoo kedo =

[And in this case, "self-centered" is also a good word choice, but]

8 Nana: = selfish [ni sum ka. [Should we use "selfish" instead?]

9 Kiku: [Minna = [Everyone]

10 Nana: = Tabun minna shiran shi na. [Maybe our classmates don't know the word.]

11 Shin: "self-centered" tokapeepaa de tsukatte mo ii shi na. [Words like "self-centered"

can be used in the paper.]

12 Nana: Un - soo da ne. [Yeah - right.]

13 Kiku: Soya na. [Right] (November 14, 2000)

In this excerpt, Nana and Kiku discuss whether they should use "self-centered" or

"selfish" in their presentation, considering the vocabulary level of their classmates. What

they are concerned with here seems to be not the accuracy of their L2 production, rather

the appropriateness (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999; Larsen-Freeman, 1991) or

appropriacy (Eggins, 1994) of it. This is evident in Kiku's value statement in Line 3 and

Nana's strong agreement in Line 4. Kiku's utterance in Line 5 and Nana's response in the

following turn suggest that they are wondering if they may end up making their speech

sound "cheap" by choosing the word "selfish" over the word "self-centered." In other

words, they are considering a possible consequence of this particular choice. The group

eventually decides to use the word "selfish." Importantly, Shingo comments, in Line 11,

"Words like 'self-centered' can be used in the term paper," and Nana and Kiku agree in

the following lines. Kiku, Nana, and Shingo had this kind of negotiation of lexical choice

several times while making their PowerPoint document, which suggests their high

181
awareness of audience. Here, two values seem to be at odds: audience's comprehension

and the groups' presentation of themselves as competent L2 speakers. This clash of

values was the problem that appeared to have created the above decision situation in

which the three students made a group decision by jointly considering alternate lexical

choices and their possible consequences (Mohan, 1986). Note that this decision-making

was done primarily in Japanese.

5.1.2.3.3 Negotiating Rhetoric

In the following interaction, Kiku, who is working on the computer, is confirming

with Nana and Shingo if they think it a good idea to repeat a phrase that they have used

earlier. Nana agrees with Kiku by saying that using the same phrase would help their

audience comprehend. Kiku then agrees with Nana and says that they must emphasize the

part in discussion.

Excerpt 5.12

1 Kiku: Mo kkai onajiyoo niyaru dee jaa. - when - student - stuck toka tte. Onajii [fureezu.-
[We will do the same thing then - we will say something like when - student - stuck.
The same phrase -]

2 Nana: Soo soo soo - onajifureezu no hoo ga wakariyasui shu Shitsukoi gurai ni
wakarasen [to na. [Yeah yeah yeah - the same phrase would be easier to
comprehend. We should be persistent so as to make our audience comprehend.]

3 Kiku: [Soya na. - Koko wa kyoochoo sena na. Okkee. Soo shiyoo. [That's right. - We
must emphasize this part. Okay. Let's do that.] ((continues to work on the
computer)) (1.0)

The computer screen that Kiku, Nana, and Shingo are looking at in Excerpt 5.13

looks like this:

How would we be in the future?

• More thoughtful

• More considerate

182
 In the following excerpt, Nana is working on the computer.

Excerpt 5.13

1 Nana: ((reading from the computer screen)) More thoughtful, more considerate.

2 Kiku: Considerate moo iran ka naa. [I wonder if we need no more words.]

3 Nana: Uun - [Hmm]

4 Kiku: = More - respectful gurai no - [sandan shuuto gurai de iku? [Like more - respectful -
shall we do something like a triple shoot?]

5 Nana: [Ma - un niko yattara chottoyowai n yo naa. [Well - yeah listing only two words

would be a little too weak wouldn't it.]

6 Kiku: Uun. Niko tte nan kaa. [Yeah. Two words, I'm not sure (it's good)]

7 Nana: Niko tte chotto na. [Two words, I'm not sure (either)]

8 Kiku: Nan ka purezen dewa baransu waruku nail = [Somehow in a presentation it

((listing two words)) seems unbalanced doesn't it]

9 Shin: = Un. Warui naa. [Yeah unbalanced.]

10 Nana: Un warui. [Yeah unbalanced.]

11 Kiku: Koko o toripuru atakku de more: (1.2) more o hitotsu ni seehenl Hondee (0.7) koo
more no ato ni nan ka koo [Here let's make a triple attack and use only one "more"
shall we? And then like after the "more" something like]
12 ((Nana deletes the first "more," instead of the second one. And a few turns later))

13 Kiku: More koko ni oi te - honde koko oo - [Put "more" here ((referring to before the word
"thoughtful" and - and this should be -]

14 Nana: AA wakatta wakatta. ((deletes the "more" before the word "considerate" and types
"more" before the word "thoughtful")) [OH I see I see.]

15 Kiku: Koo- nan te iu no - [pon-pon-pon to [like - what should I say - like bang bang bang]

16 Nana: [Aa wakatta wakatta. ((typing)) Koo iu kotoya na. [Oh I see I see. It's like this isn't

it] (November 14, 2000)

In Line 1, Nana reads the two phrases that she has typed. Kiku asks Nana and

Shingo in Line 2 if they need to add any more words and suggests in Line 4 that they

should probably add a third adjective "respectful" to the list. Nana then shows her

183
agreement by explaining why they need to add another word. Moreover, Kiku states that

in the context of a presentation, it seems "unbalanced" to use only two words of the same

kind (i.e., adjectives in this case), to which both Nana and Shingo agree in their following

turns. In Line 11, Kiku suggests that they should list three words and delete the second

"more" before the word "considerate." What the students are considering here is rhetoric

or the art of "effective or persuasive speaking and writing" (Crystal, 1992, p. 333). They

are deciding to list three words instead of two in order to make a great impression on
55

their audience. As his utterance ("like bang bang bang") in Line 15 indicates, Kiku is

envisaging the possible effect that his group is aiming to bring about in their presentation

by juxtaposing three adjectives.

5.1.2.4 Rehearsing and Performance-Coaching

Excerpt 5.14 is taken from the group interaction that Kiku, Nana, and Shingo had

the night before the presentation. They spent most of the time rehearsing their

presentation. Because of this, an increase in the amount of English used was obvious. In

the excerpt, Nana is rehearsing her part and Kiku and Shingo are listening. In Line 1,

Kiku asks Nana to start rehearsing. Hearing Nana's utterances in Line 2, Kiku suggests

that she speak more loudly. Prior to this excerpt, the three students had agreed that this

part was the most important in their presentation so Nana should draw the audience's

attention somehow. Subsequently, in Line 4, Nana said the same phrase again, this time

with much more emphasis.

What Kiku called "triple shoot" or "triple attack" here is similar to what is referred to as a "three-part
list." Incidentally, this is a technique that Atkinson (1984) identified in effective political speech (see
Wooffitt, 1996). According to Wooffitt (1996), three-part lists are effective at getting audience's applause
because "their structures allow speakers to amplify and strengthen more general points" (p. 126).

184
Excerpt 5.14

1 Kiku: Okay, Nana, please.

2 Nana: Attention please everyone. (0.5) So now I'm going to talking about =

3 Kiku: = Dameya. Sore motto dasana akan na:. [No. Maybe you should speak more

loudly.]

4 Nana: ATTENTION PLEA:SE - everyone?

5 Kiku: Soo soo. (0.4) Na: demo poketto ni te irete tara akan ya ro. [Good good. You know

- but you shouldn't speak with your hands in your pocket.]

6 Nana: ((smiling)) Ha.i. [Oka:y.] ((laughs and takes her hands out of her pockets))

7 Kiku: ((laughs))
8 Nana: I'm- I'm going to talking about the most important finding - in Japanese class (0.6)
that is unexpectedly, amazingly, (0.7) actually we don't know much about Japan -
even Japanese. (November 15, 2000)

In Line 5, Kiku acknowledges Nana's effort to speak with more emphasis, but at

the same time advises her not to speak with her hands in her pockets. Nana accepts this

advice, smiling. In a reflective interview, Kiku explained that for him, who enjoyed doing

Japanese comic stage dialogues, presenting oneself positively as well as drawing the

audience's attention was an essential part of doing a presentation. Interestingly, unlike

other students, Kiku, while working with his group members as well as reflecting on his

actions at the interviews, often used the word kyaku to refer to the audience, in this case,

Izzat and his fellow classmates. Depending on the context, the meaning of this Japanese
56

word can vary from visitors and guests to customers and clients to spectators and even

passengers, all of which refer to people who receive service. Kiku said that as a

performer of comic stage dialogue, he saw one primary goal of presenting as entertaining

his kyaku. He went on to say that this belief had been reinforced through observation of
56
Shingo was also observed to use the word kyaku during his conversations with Kiku and Nana. For
example, he said at one of their group meetings, "It is important to adjust our presentation to our kyaku:
(November 12, 2000, my translation).

185
Izzat's use of questions in her lectures as well as through participation in the pre-

departure orientation in which a member of the preceding Keishin group coached Kiku

and his peers in doing effective presentations (see Appendix K).

Excerpt 5.15

1 Kiku: Chotto ree demo dashi te miru! [How about giving some examples?] ((Kiku
demonstrates)) ...
2 Nana: Hai. [Okay.]

3 Kiku: (xx) Nan demo. [Anything will do.]

4 Nana: Okay. One of the my- one of my students I had to help - she is writing about- she was
writing about Samurai. (1.4) Should I- (0.8) should 1 - explain about Samurai! (1.4)
5 Kiku: Sure. Yeah.

6 Nana: Okay. Samurai tte nan te ii no eigo de. [How do you say Samurai in English.] (0.6)

7 Shin: Samurai. (0.5) Wakaran. [I'm not sure.] (1.3)

8 Kiku: Samurai.

9 Nana: Samurai. (1.1) Japanese old (2.5) soldier.

10 Kiku: U:n - Izzat kiku kamo shirehen na. [Yeah - Izzat may ask, like] (0.5) ((imitating
Izzat)) "Nana, can you explain Samurai? (how x) means Samurai? What does
Samurai look like?" tte. (4.3)

11 Nana: Samurai looks like? (0.9) So see? I didn't know much about Samurai, ((laughs))

12 Shin: ((laughs))

13 Nana: See? So I don't know much about Samurai if - [Izzat ask me?

14 Kiku: [Uh ((laughs)) (November 15, 2000)

In Excerpt 5.15, which took place a few turns after Excerpt 5.14, Nana tries to

make the point that three of them have realized that they "do not know much about Japan,

including its language and culture" (group meeting, November 15, 2000), or about how to

translate and explain for outsiders concepts that are widely known in Japan. In Line 1,

Kiku suggests that Nana use some examples to support the point that they are trying to

186
make as a group: i.e., that they lack knowledge about their own country. Nana then starts

to talk about her experience of realizing that she did not know much about traditional

Japanese warriors when helping one of the students from the Japanese class prepare for

his presentation about the topic. What is particularly interesting about this excerpt is that

Kiku code-switches to English and imitates Izzat's tone of voice in Line 10 to prompt

Nana to explain the meaning of the word samurai. By speaking through the teacher's

voice (Bakhtin, 1981; Wertsch, 1991b), Kiku seems to succeed in making his peer-

coaching less face-threatening, as indicated by Nana's and Shingo's laughter in Lines 11

and 12. In sum, Excerpts 5.14 and 5.15 suggest that rehearsing and peer-coaching were

two other important aspects of peer collaboration for this group in tackling a public, in-

class L2 presentation.

5.2 Tomo and Koyuki's Group Preparation for the Task

In this section, we will examine the task preparation of two other key participants,

Tomo and Koyuki, and their partner Yuji. Before examining their task-preparatory

activities, some background information needs to be provided about this group. Yuji was

a junior in agriculture from another university in Japan. Having spent an additional year
57

as a roonin or a high school graduate preparing for his university entrance

58

examinations, he was two years older than Tomo and Koyuki. Despite this age difference,

Yuji did not seem to mind his junior using an informal register with him at all. He was

eager to learn and fun to be around. Yuji enjoyed playing basketball.

57
LFW201 and LFW202 were designed for Keishin students, but other students were allowed to take them.
58
The Japanese word roonin literally means "masterless samurai." As Finkelstein (1991) states, this word
is used in Japan to refer to "a high school graduate waiting for another chance to be enrolled in a college"
(p. 221).

187
 As briefly mentioned earlier, Koyuki, Tomo, and Yuji's group was unique in that

unlike many other groups, they did not have much in common in terms of fieldwork. For

instance, Tomo initially wanted to do volunteer work related to medical treatment. This

interest was clearly reflected by his choice of topic of his ELI presentation, that is, the

provincial medical care plan (see Chapter 7). In Semester 1, when Izzat informed her

students during the second lab meeting that there was a volunteer opportunity at a local

hospital and asked them if anyone was interested, Tomo showed his interest by raising

his hand. In fact, he had previously worked as a volunteer in a medical treatment project

for non-Japanese people living in Japan. A few days later, Tomo went to the local

hospital to attend a health fair, where he enjoyed exhibitions and presentations about

health and tours around the hospital facilities. He then went to the volunteer resource

center of the hospital to seek a position, but unfortunately, he found that he was not

qualified to work there. He wrote in hisfieldjournal as follows:

Excerpt 5.16

They were looking for the person who had previous experiences, more practical skills and
knowledge, so I couldn't get the job... I think ((referring to his previous position in
Japan)) my job there was more related to policies of medical treatment, so I did not need
any medical skills at all. (October 5, 2000)

Tomo's next choice was a street youth resource center, which was located in the

same hospital building. He found the organization's information desk at the health fair

and learned that they were looking for volunteers to work in their kitchen. Tomo wrote in

the journal, "street youth is one of the big social problems. I would like to see what they

are concerned about, and what they want to do, just having contact with them in person"

(October 5, 2000). This position seemed to be a good opportunity for Tomo, who was

interested in health and welfare issues. The following week, Tomo underwent an

188
interview, which he unfortunately failed for reasons that are unclear. Although he later

got a position in a fair trade coffee business, Tomo found his experience at this interview

to be a good learning opportunity and therefore chose to talk about it in the group

presentation.

As a law major, Koyuki wanted to do volunteer work that had to do with legal and

social issues in Canada. In late September, she got a secretarial position in the human

rights committee of a local organization of Japanese Canadians. Her duties included

making mailing lists of their workshop participants, editing Japanese manuscripts and

composing letters informing people of meetings for intercultural couples. Koyuki wrote

in herfieldjournal:

Excerpt 5.17

Now I'm really glad to find a place where I can go volunteer, but I'm afraid everything
because this is the first time to volunteer for me. And also I'm afraid that I use both
English and Japanese for volunteer, but I and she [Ms. Nakano] (works with me) use
Japanese during a conversation... And also I can learn concrete issues about rights and
law in reality. In Japan, I studied law and learned a lot of issues, but I've never seen the
person concerned actually. So I think I can learn a lot by working with her, from now.
(October 5, 2000)

Apparently, Koyuki's volunteer job search resulted in a very positive outcome, an

outcome certainly more positive than that of Yuji, who failed all the interviews that he

took. Yuji expressed his frustration in hisfieldjournal: "I didn't guess this situation. I'm

so upset that everyone already starts working. I want to experience many things as soon

as possible as everyone" (October 19, 2000).

In sum, Tomo, Koyuki, and Yuji had very different experiences. Although they

did not see themselves as having much experience in common, Tomo and Yuji, having

189
worked together on the poster project (see Chapter 7) and developed a good friendship, 59

decided to do the Semester 1 presentation together. Having no classmate that did

volunteer work of similar kind, Koyuki joined Tomo and Yuji. Koyuki said somewhat

jokingly, "We were like a group of leftovers" [original in Japanese] (November 4, 2000).

5.2.1 Negotiating Task Definition and Teacher Expectations

Tomo, Koyuki and Yuji's presentation was scheduled for November 23, the final

day for the student presentation. They started their group meetings on November 11,

which lasted approximately two hours. Like Kiku and Nana's group, this group spent

much of the time negotiating task definitions and sharing their experience in Japanese.

Theyfirstdiscussed what the oral presentation was about. They agreed that they were

supposed to report what they did in their chosenfieldsand what they gained from this

experience, and that they should start by sharing their experience with each other. After

they each had a chance to tell the others what they did as volunteers and/or volunteer job

seekers and what they felt and thought along the way, the three students had the

following interaction:

Excerpt 5.18
1 Yuji: Ore kore doo matomete iino ka wakarahen. (1.0) [I'm not sure how to put these
together.]

2 Tomo: Uun. Honma doo matomete iin yaroo naa. (1.7) [Yeah. Really I wonder how we
could put them together.]

3 Yuji: ((laughs)) (0.9)

59
Tomo and Yuji were on afirstname basis. Although they had the option of using first names plus
honorific suffixes (e.g., san, kun, chart), they simply used theirfirstnames. Although there seems to be a
general agreement among linguists that speakers of modern Japanese tend to use the address term in place
of second person pronouns especially in polite speech (e.g., Loveday, 1986; Maynard, 1997; Niyekawa,
1991; Suzuki, 1978; see also Kelly, 2001), Tomo and Yuji often addressed each other with a second person
singular pronoun omae, which is a rough expression "allowed only between close friends"(Suzuki, 1978, p.
122; see also Kojima, 1988). Moreover, I often observed Yuji and Tomo "hang out" with other Keishin
students in their leisure time.

190
4 Tomo: Similarity o (0.6) [Similarity]

5 Koyu: sagasu, mazu [look for, first.]

6 Tomo: Sonoo -yappa 3nin deyaru ijoo (0.8) uun nan ka saigo wa [issho ni [Since three
of us are doing this, (0.8) yeah - in the end - together]
7 Koyu: [ikko [one]

8 Tomo: ikko ni matome nai to na. (0.9) [we should make our experiences into one
presentation.]

9 Koyu: Don na chiisai koto toka demo ii toka itteta kara na. [Izzat said that anything

which seems trivial would be okay.]

10 Yuji: Uun. [Yeah.]

11 Tomo: Uun. [Yeah.] (November 11, 2000)

As Yuji's and Tomo's utterances in Lines 1 and 2 indicate, one major challenge

that their group faced in their task preparation was to come up with one coherent

presentation about three different field experiences as a group. Importantly, in Line 9,

Koyuki quotes Izzat to agree with Tomo's opinion expressed in Line 8. As this utterance

and Tomo's audio-journal indicate, the students had asked their teacher for advice the

previous week and been advised to work together to see if they could come up with

themes that might cut across their different experiences. After the above interaction, they

started their discussion. However, their task did not seem easy at all. In fact, Koyuki once

asked the others if they should do three individual, 10-minute presentations within the

allotted 30 minutes. Tomo, revoking Izzat's voice, insisted that they give one group

presentation, with which both Koyuki and Yuji agreed.

5.2.1.1 Collaborative Dialogue in Making a PowerPoint Document

Like many other groups, Tomo, Koyuki, and Yuji decided to use the PowerPoint

program for their presentation. While Tomo and Yuji were already familiar with the

program, Koyuki had never used it before. They also decided that they would first work

191
individually to prepare documents for their own parts, and consolidate them into one

group document. Koyuki then said that she was a little apprehensive about using the

unfamiliar program, which led Tomo and Yuji to teach her how to use it. After

consolidating their materials, the group got together again to go over their group

document. In the following excerpt, the three students are looking at the computer screen

together.

Excerpt 5.19

1 Koyu: Be stuck? Get stuck?

2 Tomo: Docchi demo. [Whichever.]

3 Koyu: Kyo nan ka dare ka purezen de saa - [Today someone in his presentation]

4 Tomo: Dare ka itte ta ka na. [Someone said that I wonder.]

5 Koyu: Uun - Kikujirokun no han - ga - nan ka - sore kaite atte - stuck tteyoku kiite ta kedo -
koreyatta n daatte omo tte. [Yeah. Kikujiro's group - had the word written on the
screen. I had often heard the word "stuck" -1 thought, oh this is it]

6 Tomo: Uun. Sooya na. [Yeah - right.]

7 Koyu: Demo - uchi mo tsuka ttara akan yo naa - onaji no. Kaeta hoo ga ii? [But it would
not be good if I use the same word would it, it's better to use a different
expression?]

8 Yuji: Doo ya ro. [I wonder.]

9 Tomo: Uun. Kamo na [Hmm. Maybe]

10 Koyu: Hon na kaeyo. Chigau kotoba hoshiu [Then I will use something different. I
want a different expression.] (November 16, 2000)

In Line 1, Koyuki asks Tomo and Yuji which is grammatically accurate, "get

stuck" or "be stuck." Tomo answers in the next line, that either is okay. Interestingly,

Koyuki starts to share her observations. She says that she remembers Kiku's group using

the phrase in their presentation. In other words, she has taken it up from her classmates'

192
presentation and shared this uptake (Allwright, 1984; Slimani, 1992) with her partners.
60

This kind of uptake was not uncommon among the Keishin students at all. In fact, many

other students reported in their interviews that they had picked up new words and/or

phrases by observing their classmates' presentations.

Although she had heard it before, Koyuki did not know what the word "stuck"

looked like until she saw it on the screen. She then asks Tomo and Yuji if it is not okay

for her to use the same phrase in her talk, about which Yuji expresses his uncertainty in

the following turn. Hearing Tomo's contribution "Maybe" in Line 9, Koyuki states in

Line 10 that she will use a different expression. What she is concerned here seems to be

originality of expression. In fact, she commented after the meeting that she thought she

should find another expression because she wanted her speech to be different.

5.2.1.2 Collaborative Dialogue in Formulating Utterances

After sharing their field experiences and negotiating the content of their

presentation, Tomo, Koyuki, and Yuji each worked individually in their rooms to think

how to orally express their content. Moreover, this group worked together to formulate

utterances for their discussion and conclusion. Perhaps this was a unique part of their task

preparation, since other groups, while jointly deciding what to say and prepared their

presentation materials, did not spend time together thinking how to express their agreed

meaning.

In Excerpt 5.20, Koyuki, Tomo, and Yuji are working on part of their discussion

for which Yuji was responsible. As Yuji's utterances in Lines 1 and 3 suggest, their point

Uptake is defined by Slimani (1992) as "what learners claim to have learnedfroma particular lesson" (p.
197). In this dissertation, I extend this definition to include what students claim to have learned from other
situations including group meetings.

193
here is that many Japanese employers do not seem to value their employees' volunteer

experiences as much as their Canadian counterparts.

Excerpt 5.20

1 Yuji: ((starts to practice his part)) But in Japan, here are few - there are few - volunteer
positions in Japan.

2 Koyu: Mm - Demo kocchi no hoo ga wakariyasu soo. (xx) your company will not
interested in your volunteer experience at all. Toka. [But this might be easier to
understand, (xx) your company will not interested in your volunteer experience at all.
Something like this.]

3 Yuji: Because - (x) Japanese companies er - don't put - don't put er value on volunteer

experience. Even IF you have - much volunteer experience, - mm

4 ((several turns later))

5 Tomo: De mata however tsukau no [And are you going to use 'however' again.]

6 Yuji: Iya however- iya even if no [kawari ni - [No. However- no. Instead of even if]

7 Koyu: [Kawari ni however ['However' instead (of even if)]

8 Yuji: [However

9 Koyu: However [you have -

10 Tomo: [However - mm

11 Koyu: you have - much experience

12 Tomo: ((to Yuji)) Sono mae wa nan te ittal [What did you say before that?]

13 Yuji: Un?[Hmml]
14 Tomo: However no mae wa nan te iu nl [What do you plan to say before 'however.']

15 Yuji: Kore. ((shows his notes)) Koreyutte hon de kore no kuwashii setsumei o koko de
suru to. Tatoe anata tachi ga boran- anoo borantia no keiken o ikura motete moo
<Tomo: Un.> anata no kaisha wa [This, ((shows his notes)) I plan to say this and
explain this here. No matter how much volunteer experience you may have] <Tomo:
[Yeah.]> your company]

16 Tomo: However tsukau n ya ttara naa <Yuji: Un> ato no bunshoo waa - nan ya tta [If you
want to use however <Yuji: [Yeah.]> the following sentence should be - what was it]

17 Koyu: Chigau koto ja nai to akan nol [Should be in contrast?]

194
18 Tomo: Japanese companies put value on the - volunteer experiencetteiwa na however
tsukae hen. [You can't use however unless you say "Japanese companies put
value on the - volunteer experience."]

19 Koyu: Japanese companies put value [on volunteer experience. However (1.0) hmm?

20 Yuji: [A- sooka. A- sooka. A- sooya na. [Oh - right. Oh - right. Oh - right.]

21 Tomo: Un. [Yeah.]

22 Yuji: A- ja even if de iiya. [Well, I'll use 'even if then.]

23 Koyu: Kore wa? Donna ni- donna ni ekusuperiensu o motte ite motteyuubun wa?
Bunpoo tekini okashii«? [What about this? A sentence which starts with
however - however much experience you may have? Is this grammatically
wrong?]

24 Yuji: Even if - kore daka ra even if de iiyan. Even if - even if you have much experience,
['Even if should be okay. Right?]

25 Koyu: ((softly)) Uun. [Yeah.] (November 22, 2000)

In this excerpt, Tomo seems to be thinking of one way to express the intended

meaning and Koyuki seems to be thinking of another. Hearing Yuji's plan to use the

word however, Koyuki starts to formulate an utterance in Line 7. In Lines 12 and 14,

Tomo asks Yuji what he plans to say before the utterance that starts with the word

however so as to understand the linguistic context surrounding this utterance (see Brown

& Yule, 1983; Lyons, 1995). After hearing Yuji's answers in Line 15, Tomo states that

the word however cannot be used unless it is preceded in this case by the utterance

"Japanese companies put value on the volunteer experience." Based on this explanation,

the following text can be constructed:

Japanese companies put value on the volunteer experience. However, you have much

volunteer experience.

My conversation with Tomo, on the other hand, suggests that the text that he was actually

constructing in his mind was something like this:

195
 Japanese companies put less value on volunteer experience (than Canadian companies).
However, you have much volunteer experience.

In other words, he said it wrong, but he was not aware of this mistake. This may have to

do with the limitations of spoken discourse, which, according to Wells (1999a), include:

the evanescence of the understanding achieved in speech and the difficulty of

pursuing any one line of thinking in a systematic manner long enough to be sure
that progress has been made and to know in what that progress consists of.
(p. 115)

However, even without the mistake, the above text is problematic. As Yuji's

utterance in Line 15 suggests, what the group wanted to say basically was that Japanese

companies do not value their employees' experiences as much as their Canadian

counterparts do. Thus, the order of the two ideas above should be reversed in order for

the whole text to express this intended meaning. As her utterance in Line 19 suggests,

Koyuki might have been more or less aware of this problem, unlike her partners. Despite

its problem, Yuji shows his understanding of Tomo's explanation.

On the other hand, Koyuki was trying to formulate a sentence that included a

conditional like the following: "However much experience you have, Japanese

companies do not value it." This sentence, in fact, appears to express the intended

meaning more accurately. In Line 22, Yuji announces that he will use even
61
if, which he

initially used (see Line 3 for example). In Line 23, Koyuki asks Tomo and Yuji if her

sentence is grammatically correct. However, Yuji rejects this question apparently without

much consideration.

6 1
K o y u k i used the however-adverb (or adjective) conditional (see Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, & Svartvik,
1985) twice in her speech: "However much we learn other cultures I think there is- there can be still barrier
o f primitive habits - o f life style." and "However much you can speak other language I think it's not
enough to communicate - pe- communicate with people" (November 23, 2000).

196
 To summarize, in the above excerpt, the three students engaged in a collaborative

dialogue, which helped Yuji decide what language to use in order to express the intended

meaning. However, neither Tomo nor Yuji seems to have understood or heard Koyuki's

suggestion. Thus, her question (Line 23) remained unsolved. In short, inter subjectivity

about the use of the however-conditional was not achieved between Koyuki and her

partners.

5.2.1.3 Rehearsing

Like Kiku and Nana's group, Tomo, Yuji, and Koyuki chose to do rehearsals in

one of the classrooms in the Keishin House. However, no one worked as a peer coach.

Rather, each member invited the others to comment on their task performance. In this

phase of task preparation, the students often asked each other and the researcher if their

pronunciation, intonation, and word stress were fine and if their L2 speech made sense.

This suggests that they were primarily concerned about production of prepared utterances

or what Levelt (1989) refers to as articulation (see also Bygate, 2001). Thus, the
62

students mostly spoke in English (see also Kobayashi, 2002). For example, most of

Koyuki's utterances in the next excerpt (5.21) are made in English. 63

At their sixth group meeting, Tomo and Koyuki met without Yuji, who was busy

doing an assignment due on the following day for his agriculture course. Anticipating

this, Yuji had informed the others that he might not be able to attend the meeting. Tomo

and Koyuki, who both seemed very understanding about Yuji's situation, decided to meet

62
Levelt's (1989) model refers to the individual speaker's production of utterances. In this dissertation, I
use his concepts metaphorically to refer to student groups' foci during their task preparation.
63
Yuji was not present when this interaction took place; however, when the three of them got together to do
a trial run the night before their presentation, they spoke more English than they did in earlier phases of the
task preparation.

197
alone to do whatever preparation they could do, including rehearsing their parts. This was

thefirsttime that they did a group rehearsal.

As mentioned earlier, Tomo decided to talk about what he learned from the

interview that he underwent to get a volunteer position at a youth organization. At this

interview, Tomo was presented with three hypothetical situations in which volunteers for

the organization would likelyfindthemselves, and required to answer what he would do

as a volunteer in those situations. In the following excerpt, Tomo is practicing his part.

Excerpt 5.21

1 Tomo: In the interview uh: - my volunteer coordinator gave me uh - let me imagine the
situation while I'm working in the kitchen. So - the first question was this one.
((shown on the computer screen)) "A woman comes to you and according to her - she
was raped before. And now she's pregnant. She'll take abortion tomorrow. And then
- she came to the kitchen - and she asked me - let- let her stay at one night." So she-
she just asked me uh - what would you do. (2.2) Yeah. So: - Dee - koko de -
((laughs)) - dare ka ni = [And - here - ((laughs)) to somebody]

2 Koyu: = soko de kiku nen na. [you will address the question there, right?]

3 Tomo: What would you do? (0.9) tte kii te - [What would you do? (0.9) I will ask (this
question) and -]

4 Koyu: ((laughs))

5 Tomo: Everyone - everyone - if you have been I - at that time - how - how would have

answered - that question, ((looking at the researcher)) What do you think, [((laughs))

6 Masa: [Uh: - it's - very difficult. [Hmm -

7 Koyu: [Yeah -1 think so.

8 Masa: [Well - I would probably ask my boss umm [what to do.

9 Koyu: [Oh.

10 Tomo: Ah:

11 Masa: I don't know.

12 Koyu: Oh good idea.

13 Tomo: That's a good answer.

198
14 Masa: [((laughs))

15 Koyu: [Yeah I think [so.

16 Tomo: [Yeah. (1.3) Yeah. (3.2) Ye:s.

17 Koyu: ((looking at Tomo)) And [how about you -

18 Tomo: [((laughing)) Aa - nan te kotaeyoo (0.7) Nan te kotaeyoo [Ah: what should I say
(0.7) How should I respond] (1.2) Yeah that's a good answer. (1.8) Co:s (1.1) you
know, that kind of - cases are very serious - and also sensitive? So that - yeah - as a
volunteer it's not good because -1 don't have a good knowledge, about this - that
kind of things so - it- yeah in some - it might be uh dangerous if I get involved in -
that accident? So - yeah all you ha- all you have to do as a volunteer is uh just hitch
the staff, and then - uh tell them uh what - what- what happened to her. And leave all
to them. That's it. (November 18, 2000)

What is particularly interesting about this excerpt is that Tomo asked me his

question, positioning me as an audience member, not a researcher. In Line 6, caught

rather off guard, I commented, "It's very difficult." Koyuki agrees with this in the

following line. I then answered that I would probably ask my boss what to do, which

turns out to be "right," as indicated by Tomo's positive comment in Line 13. His

Japanese utterances in Line 18 as well as the long pauses in Line 16 suggest that Tomo

did not anticipate this situation. After making the LI utterances, Tomo repeats the same

comment that he made earlier, "That's a good answer." He commented after the

rehearsal, "since I had not expected that I would get the right answer, I was not ready"

[original in Japanese] (November 18, 2000). Thus, the unexpected answer from the

researcher made Tomo aware of the need to prepare for the alternative scenario and think

how to respond accordingly. In short, Tomo made use of the researcher's presence as a

resource for their task preparation.

5.2.2 Development of a Text through Peer Collaboration and Repeated Engagement

What was particularly unique about Tomo, Koyuki, and Yuji's group was that

they were willing to spend time jointly constructing their presentation program. In order

199
to report on this group nature, we will examine in this section how the students worked

together to help Koyuki produce the following concluding statement:

Excerpt 5.22
1 Koyu: Ah - atfirst,we were so embarrassed, because Izzat told us to make one
presentation (0.5) although we have completely different volunteer experiences. So
we tried to share and discuss our ideas and experience again and again. (0.6) And -
after that, we got- we learned (0.5) this - conclusion. <Izzat: hmm> And also we
found how important - umm - the importance of sharing ideas and experience - even
people- among people have - completely different experience. So now we want- (0.6)
we strongly want you to do the same things as- - as we? (1.8) because we are sure
you can find many new things. (1.7) And we ((looking at Izzat)) we really
appreciate Izzat giving us such a good opportunity, ((smiles))

2 Tomo: [Yeah.

3 Izzat: [Forcing you to work together? ((laughs))

4 Tomo: Yeah.

5 Yuji: Yeah. (November 23, 2000)

Although not error-free, Koyuki's text above appears to have done its job. For one

thing, it summarized her, Tomo's, and Yuji's learning through their group work. Notice

her use of rhetorical techniques. By using the "atfirstwe thought" phrase (Jefferson,

1984, cited in Wooffitt, 1996; see also Mercer, 2000), she first presents herself and her

partners as individuals who were confused by being advised by their teacher to make one

presentation out of their differentfieldexperiences. Recall that many other students,

including Kiku and Nana, prepared their presentations with classmates who worked at the

same or similar places. Having constructed themselves as "ordinary students" who

perceived the task to be confusing initially, Koyuki uses the phrases "after that.. .we

learned" and "we found" in order to discuss how this perception changed as a result of

the group discussion. As Izzat commented right after the presentation, the students
64

64
In a way, what Koyuki is doing here is reporting an "extraordinary experience" (Jefferson, 1984, cited in
Wooffitt, 1996) in that the task of doing a presentation with classmates who did not share the same or

200
clearly demonstrated that they were able to make meaning together out of their different

experiences and not necessarily positive ones for Tomo and Yuji.

Another thing is that Koyuki's concluding statement, especially the last utterance,

performed the acts of showing appreciation and thanking the instructor (Austin, 1962;

Schiffrin, 1994). This is evident from Izzat's humorous response accompanied by

laughter in Line 3, whose complete version would be "Do you appreciate my forcing you

to work together?" The speech act was performed by Koyuki through grammatical

resources, the sensing verb "appreciate," and the adjective "good" (Eggins & Slade,

1997).

Moreover, my interview data suggest that Koyuki, Tomo, and Yuji's group

presentation was perceived to be a great success by their teacher and classmates. In fact,

they received 98% (A+) for this task, the highest mark of all. Also, many of their

classmates commented that they appreciated the group's thoughtfulness as well as the

engaging delivery of the presentation. Here, one may wonder how they achieved this. To

address this question, in what follows, we will examine how Koyuki worked in

collaboration with Tomo and Yuji in order to develop her concluding statement in

Excerpt 5.17 over the last three days of their task preparation.

5.2.2.1 Rehearsing and "Noticing the Hole" in the Presentation Program

The following excerpt is taken from the aforementioned group meeting which

Tomo and Koyuki had without Yuji, who was busy trying to finish an assignment for

another course. Recall that one major activity of this meeting was rehearsing their

presentation. In the excerpt, Koyuki is about to finish her part. In Line 12, she mentions

similar experiences was rather unusual in the present context. Wooffitt (1996) cites Jefferson (1984) saying
that in reporting such an experience, the speaker first describes "their initial assessment of what was going
on~an assessment of which, crucially, turns out to be wrong" (p. 139).

201
that she is thinking of thanking Izzat, Abraham, and the researcher for their assistance in

the presentation. Here it is important to note that Koyuki is not practicing her speech, but

informing Tomo of her plan.

Excerpt 5.23

1 Koyu: .. .and I am sure - all we: - can be competent intercultures (0.6) communicators.
(1.5) Because we learned - in this class. (1.1) Or thanks to (1.1) ((looking at Tomo))
I was thinking (2.5) say thanks - thanks to this class, Izzat and Abraham, Masaki-
san. ((Masa: laughs)) Or something like - so (2.3) that's all. A:nd - we gonna (3.6) go
to (0.6) con - elusion nai «o?[we have no conclusion?]

2 Tomo: Aruyo. [We do] (0.7)

3 Koyu: ((laughing)) Demo kangaete nai. [But I haven't thought about it.] Conclusion. (2.4)
Matte. [Wait.] Our volunteer experience make- uh - Chigau wa. [No]

4 Tomo: ((laughs)) Kangaeyo ka. [Let's think about it] (November 18, 2000)

In Line 1, Koyuki asks Tomo if they do not have conclusions, which makes

Koyuki and Tomo realize that they have not thought of what to say. In Line 3, Koyuki

appears to hit on some idea. She attempts to express it in English, but has difficulty.

Tomo then suggests that they think about it together. In short, by doing this first

rehearsal, Koyuki and Tomo "noticed the hole" (Swain, 1998) in their presentation
65

program (i.e., their conclusion). As such, all they know at this point is that Koyuki is

considering acknowledging the instructor, the TA, and the researcher.

5.2.2.2 Negotiating Language and Content (formulating)

The following excerpts were taken from the group interaction that Tomo, Koyuki,

and Yuji had the night before their presentation. By this time, the students had decided to

acknowledge only the instructor in their presentation.

SLA researchers such as Swain (1998) and Doughty and Williams (1998) use this phrase to refer to
learners' noticing that they have a problem expressing what they want to say precisely in their L2, in other
words, noticing a hole in their interlanguage. Here, I simply use the phrase to refer to students' noticing that
they have not thought what to say in the presentation and/or how to say it in English.

202
5.2.2.2.1 Collaborative Dialogues Going in a Desired Direction

Excerpt 5.24

1 Koyu: Thanks to nante ittara ii ka na. [In addition to thanks what should I say]
((enunciating)) You: gave this opportunity - ka naa. [Should this be "you gave this
opportunity.]

2 Tomo: Soo soo. [Yeah yeah]

3 ((a few turns later))

4 Koyu: At first,

5 Tomo: Soo soo. [Yeah yeah]

6 Koyu: we thought it's difficult - mm (5.3)

7 Tomo: Koo - hajime waa (0.5) sonoo - zenzen chigau (0.7) borant 'ia shita 3 nin ga
atsumeraretee - atsumerarete ((laughs)) tte - atsumattan ya kedo - afsumattee - nde -
sugoi - chotto muzukashisoo ni mieta kedo (0.7) sono naka de - sono - jibun no
borant'ia keeken no koto o (0.9) [Like - at first - (0.5) well - three of us who did
completely different volunteer work were put together - were put together ((laughs)) -
I mean we got together -we got together and it ((referring to the task)) seemed very
difficult but (0.7) in that process -well - our volunteer experiences]

8 Koyu: share!

9 Tomo: Un. Share. Share dekite koo iu koto o hakken deki mashi ta. Dakara (0.6) minna mo
share shita ra jibun no hakken ga aru kamo shiremasen yo tte itte = [Yeah share. We
could share our experiences and make these discoveries. So (0.6) if you share your
experience you may make your own discovery- you say something like this and]

10 Koyu: = Un un un. = [Yeah yeah yeah.]

11 Tomo: = de- koo iu kikai o ataete kurete Izzat ni (0.6) totemo kansha shite imasu to koo
itte [and - we are very grateful to Izzat, who gave this opportunity - say
something like this and]

12 Koyu: Appreciate!

13 Tomo: Soo. [Yeah.] I really appreciate you give me such a good opportunity.

14 Koyu: Such a good opportunity! Great! Sore sugoi. [That's great.]

15 Tomo: And uh - ((jokingly)) thank you Izzat.

16 Koyu: "Such a" -tte- kaite oko. ["Such a" -1 will write this down.] ((writes it down))

17 Yuji: Such a - such a great opportunity! (3.6) (November 22, 2000)

203
 In Line 1, Koyuki is wondering what she should say in addition to "thanks" to the

instructor, and says, "You: gave this opportunity - ka naa." Tomo then indicates that she

is on the right track by giving her positive feedback in the next line. A few turns later,

Koyuki starts again to think what to say, and formulates an L2 utterance in Lines 4 and 6,

which is interjected by Tomo's positive feedback in Line 5. But she seems to be having

difficulty producing further utterances, as indicated by the hesitation marker ("mm") and

as well as by the long pause (5.3 seconds). Then, in Line 7, Tomo starts to tell Koyuki in

Japanese what she could say. In Line 8, Koyuki builds on Tomo's utterance by providing

the English verb "share" in a timely fashion, which suggests that she was anticipating

what Tomo might say next. This seems to be what Levinson (1983) calls projection.

According to Ohta (2001), this is a "process of selective attention" in which "the listener

anticipates what might come next in the speaker's production, making predictions about

how the utterance may continue" (p. 78). Thus, Koyuki's provision of the word "share"

here exhibits a high degree of contingency.

In Line 9, incorporating Koyuki's contribution, Tomo continues to tell her what

she could say in the conclusion section. Koyuki also continues to display her

attentiveness to Tomo's utterances by her use of back channels (van Lier, 1998a) in Line

10. In Line 11, Tomo expresses in Japanese the content of the message that Koyuki had

difficulty expressing earlier. Hearing this, Koyuki enthusiastically utters an English word

"appreciate" in the next line. In Line 13, Tomo acknowledges this and produces a

grammatically inaccurate but complex L2 utterance, "I really appreciate you give me

such a good opportunity." Koyuki shows her attentiveness to this utterance by repeating

the last four words of it ("such a good opportunity") and making positive evaluations in

204
both English and Japanese. Subsequently, Koyuki announces that she is writing down this

phrase and does so in Line 16, which indicates that her attention was paid to the last four

words of Tomo's utterance rather than to the grammatical structure of it (requiring a

gerund complement, Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1983, 1999). Here, it is important

to note that although not reflected in the transcript, Yuji was observed to display his

attentiveness to the interaction between Tomo and Koyuki by gazing at the speakers and

nodding frequently. In summary, what Tomo and Koyuki did here was that they co-

constructed an L2 utterance. Tomo first expressed its content in Japanese, and then

Koyuki provided the L2 word "appreciate," which led to Tomo's construction of the

English utterance. In other words, they used Japanese to conceptualize and then

formulated an L2 utterance. Japanese thus seems to have served the students as a tool for

establishing intersubjectivity and thinking together.

About one hour later, Koyuki, Tomo, and Yuji revisited the same linguistic
i

problem in the following excerpt. In Line 1, Koyuki is trying to formulate the same L2

utterance by herself, but having difficulty. Her struggle is indicated by the frequent long

pauses occurring within clauses. As Pawley and Syder (2000) put it, breaks in oral

discourse occur for different reasons, which include "organic or physiological reasons

(breathing, coughing, laughing, etc.), interactional reasons (pausing for dramatic effect or

elicit audience reaction), and reasons for involving the speaker's cognitive state (as when

experiencing a mental block, striving for self-control, or engaged in planning)" (p. 172).

The breaks in the present case seem to be occurring for reasons for involving Koyuki's

cognitive states. In fact, she uses self-addressed LI speech ("mm no"). As we have seen

in Chapter 2, such private speech, in the literature, is claimed to be a psychological tool

205
that individuals, when faced with difficult tasks, use to self-regulate their own behaviors

(Diaz & Berk, 1992; Lantolf, 2000b; Ohta, 2001; Vygotsky, 1987). Koyuki's challenge in

this case of course is to formulate the appreciate-subject-participle-complement

construction (see Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999).

Excerpt 5.25

1 Koyu: [and - and we: (0.9) we really want to - Ee chigau. [Mm no.] - We really appreciate
(1.0) appreciate - Izzat (1.2) appreciate that Izzat ((looks at Tomo)) (1.3)

2 Tomo: We really appreciate Izzat giving us a - such an [opportunity.

3 Koyu: [such a good o- (0.6) opportunity.

4 Tomo: mm =

5 Koyu: = Matte, [wait,] (0.8) We really appreciate Izzat gave - us [such a good

6 Tomo: [Giving - giving - tabun [maybe].

7 Koyu: [Giving.

8 Yuji: ((speaking very softly)) [Aa doomeeshi nanya. [Oh - it's a gerund.]

9 Koyu: Giving, uh - okay. We really appreciate Izzat giving (0.6) us such a good
opportunity (1.4) to - uh - good opportunity - \ya kke. [was it]
10 Tomo: [Un. [Yeah.] (November 22, 2000)

After making several attempts to produce the construction, Koyuki looks at Tomo

possibly for help. In Line 2, Tomo produces the L2 utterance again, this time,

grammatically accurately. Again, Koyuki repeats the last four words of the utterance in

Line 3. She then tries to formulate the utterance again in Line 5, but still selects the past

tense "gave" instead of the gerund "giving." In Line 6, Tomo tells Koyuki that he thinks

that "giving" might be the right choice. Koyuki repeats the word in Line 7. Having

observed this interaction, Yuji comments in Line 8, "oh - it is a gerund," showing his

206
heightened awareness of the L2 construction. Given its volume, this utterance may be

considered as private speech (see Ohta, 2001, for a relevant discussion).

In Line 9, Koyuki first shows her awareness of the form and then produces an

accurate utterance. Koyuki's use of the "to" after the word "opportunity" indicates that

she attempted to add an infinitive. This was later corroborated by Koyuki's comment that

she wanted to describe what kind of opportunity it was that Izzat gave them, but did not

know what to say. Nonetheless, Koyuki and Tomo jointly constructed the complex L2

utterance through extended discourse. At first, Koyuki seemed to be attending to the last

four words of the utterance and did not notice the gerund despite Tomo's modeling in

Line 6. However, receiving the explicit feedback on her L2 production ("giving - giving -

tabun [maybe]") from Tomo, Koyuki finally became aware and were able to produce it

accurately. However, this is not the end of the story. As we will see later, Koyuki

continued to engage with the language through rehearsals.

5.2.2.2.2 Collaborative Dialogues Going in an Undesired Direction

Given the students' concern for accuracy and appropriacy, Excerpts 5.24 and 5.25

can be seen as examples of collaborative dialogues going in a desired direction (see

Storch, 1999). However, not all collaborative dialogues went in this direction.

Excerpt 5.26

1 Koyu: At first, - at first - we: we- ett komatta toka tte itte ii? [Can I say we were confused?]

2 Tomo: Eeyo. [Sure.]

3 Koyu: We felt - we felt down - or we got a lost.

4 Tomo: Komatta? [Confused?]

5 Koyu: got - losttteokashii? Komattatteatashin toko de nan ka tsukatta yoo na. [Is "got
lost" strange? I think I used the word komatta in my (previous) part]

6 Tomo: We were - we were embarrassed. (1.2)

207
7 Koyu: We were - we were embarrassed.
8 Tomo: Yeah. (November 22, 2000)

In this excerpt, Koyuki is formulating the very first utterance of her concluding

statement with Tomo listening to her while Yuji is practicing his part on his own. In Line

1, she asks Tomo in Japanese if she can say that they were all confused at first. Tomo's
66

answer in the next line is "Sure." Koyuki then says, "we felt - we felt down - or we got a

lost" in Line 3, which seems different from the Japanese word in meaning. In Line 4,

Tomo asks Koyuki if what she wants to say is "confused." In Line 5, Koyuki asks Tomo

if "got lost" is "strange" or wrong, and says that she thinks that she used the phrase in her

previous part. Tomo then says in English, "we were - we were embarrassed" in Line 6.

Koyuki repeats this utterance in Line 7, and then Tomo provides positive feedback in

Line 8. As my translation above suggests, the English word "embarrassed" may not be

the best word choice in this context. Koyuki later explained that although she knew the

meaning of the word "embarrassed" as in red-faced, she thought that Tomo was talking

about another meaning of the word as in "confused," and thus decided to use it. This

decision may have to do with Koyuki's perception of Tomo as a more competent knower

and user of English. Koyuki, in fact, commented that she might have questioned the

legitimacy of the word choice if it had come from someone else. At a previous group

meeting, Koyuki had said to Tomo (Kaneshiro):

Excerpt 5.27

Professor Yamamoto (the Associate Dean of the Joint Program and personal advisor)
recommended that I talk with you, Tomo. He said at the interview, "Let's improve your
TOEFL score."... And he said, "It is best to ask those who have gotten high scores how
they prepared for the test." Really. He produced a student list and said, something like "I
will introduce you to someone." ... He said, "How about Mr. Kaneshiro?" ((Tomo
laughs)) Professor Yamamoto said, "He is great." (November 20, 2000)
66
The Japanese word komatta can be translated as confused, perplexed, or uncertain in this context.

208
 Thus, for Koyuki, Tomo had been constructed by the Associate Dean as a TOEFL

expert, thus as someone to be consulted. Similarly, Yuji said, "Isn't that because you are

great?" [original in Japanese] (November 20, 2000) when he heard that Tomo, who told

the Associate Dean that he would not be able to attend the pre-departure training camp

(obligatory for all Keishin newcomers), was exempted from it and did not have to do any

make-up.

5.2.2.2.3 Joint Construction of Utterances

The following interaction took place immediately after Excerpt 5.26. Notice that

Koyuki has taken up the word "embarrassed," which Tomo has suggested earlier.

Excerpt 5.28

1 Koyu: At first we were - we were embarrassed - to mm? Iya, gomen. mata kangaeta hoo
ga ii? [No, sorry. Should I think about it again?]
2 Tomo: becau:se, =

3 Koyu: = we - we were embarrassed because we think - we - we thought it's so difficult to

(1.9) to find - to find - naa- similarity o sagasette itte ten yan na, Izuizu [Hey - Izuizu
[nickname] told us to find similarities (among our experiences) didn't she.]

4 Tomo: Uun. [Yea:h.]

5 Koyu: To find similarity - ya, demo similarity ja nainyan naa. (1.0) [But we didn't come up
with similarities, did we]
6 Tomo: Dakara koo yatte kantan ni ittaraee nen. (0.5) [So you could simply say like this]
we were embarrassed - because -

7 Koyu: becau:se,

8 Tomo: Izzat told us to (1.1) to do our volunteer - uh to do our presentation together.

(2.1)

9 Koyu: although we have =

10 Tomo: = mm. ((nods))

11 Koyu: completely different [experience.

12 Tomo: [Yeah! (1.6) (November 22, 2000)

209
 In Line 1, Koyuki tries to formulate her first utterance but experiences difficulty.

She makes an apology and asks Tomo if she should think about it again. In Line 2, Tomo

builds upon Koyuki's utterance by saying "because" with a prolonged vowel and rising,

continuing intonation, seemingly encouraging Koyuki to continue. No sooner had he

finished saying the word, Koyuki started to produce L2 utterances again (Line 3). She

then checks with Tomo in Japanese her understanding of Izzat's expectation about the

presentation task. Having received Tomo's confirmation in Line 4, Koyuki tries to

continue her L2 production in Line 5. However, in the same line, she makes another

confirmation check in Japanese. Tomo then demonstrates what she could say in English

in Line 6. Here, notice his use of the cataphoric demonstrative this ("...like this")

(Halliday & Hasan, 1976). This reference made in Japanese can be considered as a

proactive resource to draw Koyuki's attention to what is coming next (van Lier, 1998a).

Koyuki then repeats the word "because" with a prolonged vowel and rising, continuing

intonation in Line 7, displaying her attentiveness to Tomo's previous turn and possibly

inviting Tomo to continue. Tomo completes his modeling in Line 8. Koyuki then

continues to build on his utterance in the next line, to which Tomo provides confirming

feedback in Lines 10 and 12. As neo-Vygotskian scholars might put it, Tomo scaffolded

Koyuki's formulating of the L2 utterance, something which she might not have been able

to accomplish by herself (e.g., Donato, 1994; Maybin, Mercer, & Stierer, 1992; Mercer,

1992; van Lier, 1998a; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976).

210
5.2.2.2.4 Collaborative Dialogue Not Reaching a Consensus

Naturally, not all collaborative dialogues reached a consensus. While Koyuki

accepted her peers' ideas in the previous excerpts, she rejects their ideas in the following

excerpt:

Excerpt 5.29

1 Koyu: Motto iron na kototte,- nan teyuun daro. [I wonder how I can say many more
things] More - more -
2 Yuji: Motto nani? Motto nani? [More what? More what?]

3 Koyu: Nan ka naa, share idea shitara, koo motto iron na koto ga mitsukaru yotte iitai nen.
(0.7) [You know, I want to say something like - if you share ideas, many more
things will be discovered]

4 Yuji: We can find - experience more. (Too much-) many things more.

5 Koyu: Many things?

6 Yuji: Un. - Many things more. (9.0) Okashii ka na - bunpoo teki ni. [Yeah. - Many things
more. Is this wrong - grammatically.] There- they can - they - uh - you can find many
things more.

7 Koyu: Soreka na, you can find many new things toka wa. Okashii. [Or how about you can
find many new things. Is this wrong.]

8 Yuji: ((speaking softly and sounding sullen)) Iin chau. [I guess it's okay]

9 Koyu: Un? [Hmm?]

10 Yuji: Un. [Yeah]

11 Koyu: Honma ka na. [I wonder if it's true.]

12 Yuji: Many new things more.

13 Koyu: At first - we were embarrassed... ((continues to rehearse her statement)) (November

22,2000)

In Line 1, Koyuki says that she wonders how she can say "many more things" in

English, again asking for help. Having missed what Koyuki said, Yuji makes a

clarification request. Using Japanese, Koyuki then tells him in more detail what she

211
wants to say in English. In Line 4, Yuji attempts to express the content in English.

Koyuki then says, "Many things?" repeating the last part of Yuji's utterance. While

providing positive feedback, Yuji recasts Koyuki's utterance, adding "more" to the end.

After a long pause (9 seconds), he asks Koyuki if his L2 production is grammatically

wrong and then produces a complete sentence in English. Koyuki uses a different L2

expression, "many new things," and asks Yuji if this is wrong. Here, Koyuki seems to be

implicitly rejecting Yuji's suggestion. In the following turn, Yuji says that he guesses it is

okay, sounding sullen. Koyuki then makes a clarification request, to which Yuji simply

responds by saying "yeah." In Line 11, Koyuki says that she wonders if Yuji means it.

Yuji produces the same utterance, "many things more," one more time. Without

responding to this utterance, Koyuki begins to practice her concluding statement in Line

13.

What is interesting about this interaction is that Koyuki and Yuji are not only

formulating the L2 utterance together, but also challenging each other's idea implicitly.

As the transcript shows, they did not reach a consensus. However, Koyuki, as the speaker

of the text being constructed, made a final decision as to how to express the content in

English, rejecting Yuji's idea. In fact, Koyuki later told me that she thought that "many

things more" was grammatically wrong, but she was not quite sure how to say this to

Yuji without offending him. She said that she was hesitant because she was the one with

the lowest TOEFL score among the group members and the only one that was not

allowed to take regular courses. This suggests that Koyuki and Yuji were negotiating not

only L2 form but also their L2 competences and identities.

212
5.2.2.3 Koyuki's Repeated Engagement with Her Cognitive Uptake

As the above excerpts suggest, Tomo, Koyuki, and Yuji were engaged in

collaborative dialogues to construct their presentation text, including Koyuki's

concluding statement. For one thing, Koyuki had a chance to observe Tomo's production

of the "appreciate-subject-participle-complement" construction and produce it herself

with the help of him. However, her engagement with the text did not cease here. Koyuki

continued to attend to the form throughout the trial runs.

Table 5.1: Koyuki's Repeated Engagement with the Language

Trial # Text Koyuki's comments

1 ~ ~

2 ~ ~

3 (2.4) so (2.5) we really appreciate (0.7) Koyuki: "I wanted to get it

we really appreciate Izzat giving us such right."[original in Japanese]
a good opportunity.
4 (0.7) and we really appreciate Izzat Koyuki: "I was thinking that it's giving
giving us such a good opportunity. that comes after 'appreciate.' And I told
myself, like giving, giving, giving"
[original in Japanese] (covert self-
addressed LI speech)
5 (0.9) and now we -appreciate Izzat give (overt self-addressed LI speech for self-
(0.5) giving yana - kore. [this is giving confirmation)
isn't it.] - now we really appreciate Izzat
giving us such a good opportunity.
Final (1.7) and we ((looking at Izzat)) we really Koyuki: "I don't remember very much. I
appreciate Izzat giving us such a good was nervous. How was it?" But I thought,
opportunity, ((smiles)) "Oh I should look at Izzat." [original in
Japanese] (covert self-addressed LI
speech)

In Table 5.1, Koyuki's production of the appreciate-subject-participle-

complement in each trial (having first used it correctly the third trial) is juxtaposed with

her comments obtained through a spot interview. Note that neither utterances nor

comments are listed for the first two trials as the students decided to thank Izzat after the

second trial. In Trial 3, Koyuki produces an accurate utterance but she makes fairly long

pauses before and within the phrase ("so we really appreciate"). As her comment ("I

213
wanted to get it right.") suggests, her main concern seems to have been to get her

language right. On the fourth trial, Koyuki seems to have produced the utterance with less

hesitation. Her reflection suggests that she reminded herself that the verb "appropriate"

takes a gerund. In other words, Koyuki used covert self-addressed LI speech to regulate

her own production of the same L2 item.

For the fifth trial, I was not able to conduct a spot interview because Koyuki,

Tomo, and Yuji continued their group discussion. But the examination of Koyuki's

discourse suggests that she was still paying attention to the appreciate-subject-participle-

complement, which is indicated by her use of overt self-addressed LI speech. Finally, in

the actual presentation, Koyuki produced the utterance accurately and fluently. Notice

that here she performed two nonverbal communicative acts: eye gaze and a smile.

Although the latter might have come out naturally as a result of her successful production

of the language, the former act seems to have taken a conscious effort. Koyuki

commented that in producing the utterance, she reminded herself that she should look at

the teacher. Again, she made use of inner speech to regulate her own performance.

What Table 5.1 indicates is that Koyuki continued to practice her concluding

statement, attending to the appreciate-subject-participle-complement form, after

participating in the series of collaborative dialogues with Tomo and Yuji. Here, one

might wonder what motivated this repeated engagement. This is what Koyuki had to say:

Since we were the last group to present and I was the final speaker of my group, I thought
that I should do my part well. So I worked very hard on my concluding statement. Also, I
had observed many great presentations, [original in Japanese] (Interview, December 9,
2000)

Apparently, Koyuki's repeated engagement with the concluding text seems to have been

motivated by her conception of herself as the final speaker of the final group. To

214
summarize, Koyuki's seemingly simplistic, eight-utterance text was produced by the

cumulative effects of a number of task-preparatory activities (see van Lier, 1988, for a

relevant discussion) that she and her partners chose to do, such as negotiating the content

and language of the presentation, and rehearsing and revising their speech.

5.3 Alternate Forms of Agency

We have so far examined the task-preparatory activities of Kiku and Nana's group

and Tomo and Koyuki's group. As the data have shown, members of these groups

worked together over several days to accomplish their presentation tasks. As a result,

both groups received a high mark from their teacher. However, not all groups were as

collaborative and successful as these groups. For example, to prepare for their Semester 1

presentation, Rei and her partners, who volunteered for children in an after-school

program, had only two meetings as a group. Each of these meetings lasted less than an

hour. At theirfirstmeeting, they shared their experiences and decided who would talk

about what in the presentation. For instance, the group decided that Rei would discuss the

education of children in the program. The group also decided that they would each spell

out the content of their talk. A few days later, the group had the second meeting in the

Keishin lab to consolidate their notes into a group handout. Rei said that they were

planning to meet again to do further preparation, but as the following email message from

Rei suggests, they decided not to do so, having several assignments to do:

E x c e r p t 5.30

To Masaki-san,

Our presentation is scheduled for tomorrow. But surprisingly, it turned out that we would
perform it without having any more meetings. I wonder if this is a good decision... Since
I have several more assignments to do, I don't even have time to worry about the
presentation. But I'll work hard so as to perform it all right.

215
 See you tomorrow.
Rei [original in Japanese] (E-mail communication, November 9, 2000)

Rei reported that she planned and practiced her speech by herself. Thus, in

essence, this group divided their work, carried out their share individually, and put them

together on the very day of the presentation. Consequently, they gave their presentation

without knowing what their partners had to say. This lack of joint preparation seemed to

have been obvious to Izzat, who gave Rei's group a relatively low mark for their task

performance. Subsequently, she commented at the end-of-semester interview that she had

thought their presentation to be somewhat incoherent and disorganized. In retrospect, Rei

said that it was true that they were all busy with other assignments but she thought that

they could and should have held a rehearsal or two.

Another unique case was Ichiro's group, who started their task preparation two

days before their presentation. Ichiro and his partner Taichi were scheduled to volunteer

for a UN-afiiliated organization, but they wound up not working because they never

heard from the organization. Unlike their classmates who did not get their first choice and

explored other possibilities, both Ichiro and Taichi persisted in their first choice. Ichiro

explained this act at his interview as follows:

To begin with, I didn't like the idea of having to do volunteer work as a course
requirement, and I still don't. But I have to admit that having listened to my classmates'
presentations, I thought that many of them seemed to have had interesting experiences.
Yet, I don't believe that volunteer work should be a course requirement.. .It should be
voluntary. There may be some people who did volunteer work for the course in Semester
1, but would like to continue it because they found it meaningful. I think that's great. It's
a case where things ended well. Basically, I am completely against the idea of having to
volunteer work as a course assignment. If possible, I wanted to do something which I
truly wanted to do. I didn't want to compromise even if I couldn't find anything
meaningful. I was fully prepared to receive a poor grade. (Interview, November 18, 2000)

Importantly, Taichi shared this feeling. Thus, Ichiro and Taichi were both

determined to adhere to the original plan. Here, it should be noted that they both regarded

216
oral presentations to be an important task for university students to learn especially in

North America. In fact, Ichiro said that he appreciated the great number of opportunities

that he had to give oral presentations at WPU because of his plan to pursue a master's

degree in North America. Hence, it was the notion of "volunteer" work as a course

"requirement" that he resisted (see Eyler & Giles, 1999, for relevant discussion).

In late October, worrying about their situation, Izzat suggested to Ichiro and

Taichi that they instead attend university-sponsored events including lectures and

workshops (see Chapter 6). The students later said that since they were no longer

required to work as "volunteers," and had choice as to what events to attend, they

regarded this option to be more acceptable and meaningful. However, their presentation

got scheduled for the first day of student presentations (i.e., November 9) by lot, which

left them with only a little time to prepare for their task. On November 8, Ichiro and

Taichi stayed up all night and finished their preparation barely in time. As such, they did

not have time to prepare computer-printed transparencies or to relate their observations

with the course materials. In the following exchange, which took place in the question

and answer time, Izzat asks the students about this point.

Excerpt 5.31

1 Izzat: And uh: (0.5) the other question is - so (0.9) this presentation has nothing to do
with - any of your observations that you did [(for xxx)

2 Ichi: [Uh so - uh (0.5) you're remi- (0.8) remind, (1.8) that (0.6) uh: (3.0) mmm so (0.8)
you're (0.6) encourage to (apply) the (2.0) lecture (1.1) uh: whose title was uh (1.8)
uh: getting to know Canada?

3 Izzat: Ah: =

4 Ichi: = Yeah.

5 Izzat: I see.

217
6 Ichi: The topic was uh politics. And (1.1) so sometimes uh lecturer uh talked about (1.2)
uh Quebec or -

7 Izzat: I see. So it does have something to do.

8 Ichi: Yeah.

9 Izzat: Okay. So make sure to mention that in your paper when you write it up. (Class 1,
November 9, 2000)

Here, Ichiro succeeded in clarifying the teacher's question; however, this excerpt

suggests that Ichiro and Taichi failed to draw connections between their observations and

the content of the course (i.e., intercultural communication), which was an important

requirement for the task. Moreover, this group spent more than 40 minutes, thus going

over the 30-minute time limit. Ichiro later said that he had to admit that their presentation

lacked planning. As a result, this group received the same mark as Rei's group. In sum,

Rei's group chose to keep their group work to a minimum whereas Ichiro's group resisted

the idea of having to do volunteer work for a course. Both of these acts had the negative

consequence of receiving a relatively low mark for the task.

5.4 Summary of the Chapter

In the present chapter, we first examined the task-preparatory activities that two

groups of contrasting types engaged in to prepare for their Semester 1 presentations. As

Legutke and Thomas (1991) say, "the presentation itself is an event of short duration but

it is preceded by a preparatory process of collective decision-making, data organization

and skill acquisition" (p. 179). In fact, like many other groups, Kiku and Nana's group

and Tomo and Koyuki's group both spent a number of hours to prepare for their

presentations. This preparation included sub-activities such as negotiating task definition

and teacher expectation, sharing experiences, negotiating language, content, and rhetoric,

making a PowerPoint document, and rehearsing and revising the speech.

218
 Like other key participants and their partners, Kiku, Nana, Koyuki, and Tomo,

and their partners used Japanese in all phases of their task preparation. In early stages,

they shared theirfieldexperiences tofindcommon themes, looking at their own

fieldwork journals with the teacher's comments. In other words, they negotiated the

content of the presentation primarily in Japanese. Then, after hours of discussion about

theirfieldexperiences and learning primarily in their LI, both groups started to make a

PowerPoint document and talked about the language of their presentation. Like previous

studies (e.g., Donato, 1994; Kobayashi & Kobayashi, 2000; Ohta, 1995; Swain & Lapkin,

1998; also see Wells, 1999a), this chapter has shown that by thinking together and

marshalling a variety of tools and resources, the students were sometimes able to solve

language problems. As the interactions between Koyuki and Tomo (Excerpt 5.24 and

5.25) suggest, some students even scaffolded their partners' L2 production. However, at

other times, problems remained unsolved or even unnoticed.

Students often searched for words or phrases that could be understood without

difficulty by student members of the audience (e.g., Excerpt 5.11). Interestingly, for Kiku

and Nana's group, this was at odds with another concern that they had: not to sound/look

"cheap" by using too many words that are too easy. As Tracy's (1997) study shows,

participants in academic seminars, including presenters and professors, often face similar

dilemmas. Because of their perception of the presentation as stage performance, Kiku,

Nana, and Shingo were not only concerned about the accuracy of their text, but also

about their audience's comprehension and their perceptions of them as English speakers.

Moreover, data have shown that Koyuki was concerned about the originality of her

language as well as about its accuracy.

219
 Both groups chose to rehearse their presentations in the classroom. In the former

group, Kiku served as a major peer-coach, commenting on his partner's task

performance. Although there was some talk about language, at this stage, the students'

focus seemed to be on articulation and performance (see Chapter 1). Thus, the amount of

Japanese used decreased as group work progressed, which indicates that the LI might

have served as an important scaffold for their task accomplishment in English, handing

over the role it played to the L2 (see Chapter 2 for the notion of scaffolding).

This chapter has also documented on the development of Koyuki's concluding

statement through peer collaboration. Koyuki, Tomo, and Yuji engaged themselves in

negotiating the content and language of the presentation as well as in rehearsing their

speech in order to produce the seemingly simplistic, eight-utterance text. My analysis of

the discourse and interview data suggests that Koyuki appropriated some of the linguistic

knowledge that was negotiated and co-constructed in her group interactions. In this

process of appropriation, she used self-addressed LI speech—overt and covert—to

regulate her own L2 production (Lantolf, 2000b; Ohta, 2001; Vygotsky, 1986, 1987).

Hence, it was not collaborative dialogue or task repetition alone that seemed to have

contributed to Koyuki's appropriation of the grammatical item, but rather a combination

of both: her cognitive uptake from the collaborative dialogue followed by her repeated

engagement with the item through rehearsals.

However, not all groups worked as collaboratively and successfully as these two

groups. Having several assignments to do, Rei's group chose to keep their group work to

a minimum. Consequently, their presentation was perceived by their teacher to lack

coherence and organization. Resisting the idea of having to do volunteer work for a

220
course, Ichiro's group did not explore other possibilities despite the fact that they had not

heard from their first choice organization. In short, students, as active agents, made

decisions and took (in)actions about their presentation tasks, which seemed to have had

consequences, positive or negative.

221
 Chapter 6

STUDENTS' PERFORMANCE OF ORAL PRESENTATIONS

6.0 Introduction

Chapter 5 took an in-depth, behind-the-scenes look at the group work that the key-

students and their partners engaged mainly in out of class time as they prepared for their

oral presentations. In contrast, this chapter focuses on students' public performance of

this academic task, weaving together participants' task discourse and reflective comments

where appropriate. Transcripts of their presentations were analyzed for ideational

reflection, self-regulation, peer collaboration, interpersonal action and strategies to

involve the audience, discourse management, and audience contributions, all categories

that emerged from the data but also figure prominently in sociocultural theories. While

the activities of the 11 key students and their partners' are the primary focus of the

present study, in this chapter, excerpts from other students' presentations are presented as

well for the purpose of increasing the scope and adequacy of the data. Before looking at

discourse samples from the student presentations, we will examine some of the common

characteristics of the student presentations in the following section.

6.1 Characteristics of the Student Presentations

Students' oral presentations were easily identified as they had relatively clear

boundaries. The initial boundary was marked by a presenter greeting such as "Good

morning" and "Hello everyone." This was followed by an introduction of group members

and statement of the research topic. Many presentations, especially the two end-of-

semester presentations, involved justification of the research topic, a statement of

purpose, descriptions of the fieldwork, and report of the findings and learningfromthe

222
experience. The final boundary of the student presentation was marked by a presenter

utterance such as "Thank you for your attention." and "This is the end of our

presentation." Table 6.1 summarizes the central tendency of actual task duration

including the response time following the presentation.

Table 6.1: Central Tendency of Actual Task Duration (minutes)

Number Median Range Mean SD

Poster Session 25 6.8 2.7-13.7 7.1 3.2
Semester 1 25 29.7 18.2-42.5 31.2 7.7
Presentation
Semester 2 16 67
50 32.7-93.4 51.7 15.3
Presentation

For the nonverbal communication poster project, many groups mostly explained

the meaning of their posters, which were visually shared with the audience. In the

following example, Sakura is explaining the meaning of the poster that she made with

Yoshino and Shinpei. Their poster was a collection of pictures from a variety of posters.

Excerpt 6.1

Saku: Uh: this one (0.9) this one says (0.7) "produce for HIV?" (1.1) And (1.1) these (0.6)
these are - doves? (0.5) And doves (1.3) are the symbol of peace. <Izzat: Hmm.> A:nd
(1.0) in this poster, these (0.9) doves - fly away? (1.1) Umm (1.1) That- this mean (0.9)
that mean peace also fly away. (0.5) And (1.1) here is - sad face. <Izzat: Umm.> Sad
face and (0.5) it's kind of red color, (3.5) indicate (0.5) weak future of the world? (0.7)
And cause (3.3) cause of AI- AIDS or HIV? (0.9) Uh- Uh, - HIV? Yeah. And (1.2) Po
(0.7) and this poster say (0.6) "appeals - the- the danger of AIDS and - AIDS could bring
- leukemia, too?" (Class 2, October 5, 2000)

As this example suggests, the students' discourse was characterized by the

demonstratives "this" and "these" and the deictic adverb of place "here" (see Levinson,

1983), both of which co-occurred with pointing gestures. In other words, their utterances

As mentioned in Chapter 3,1 observed two of the three sections of Izzat's course in the second semester
to focus on the key participants' activities.

223
were bound up with the here-and-now information of the poster. This was a salient

feature of all the poster presentations (or, as Izzat called them, poster facilitation)

observed in the present study. In contrast, for the two end-of-semester presentations,

students described events and information spatially and temporally distant. As we will

see later in this chapter, they marshalled a wider variety of linguistic resources.

In their posters, students included the required information (i.e., definitions, types, and

functions of non-verbal communication), which was computer-printed in many cases.

However, most groups did not refer to this information. For the Semester 1 presentation,

14 groups used PowerPoint; 10 groups used the OHP; and the rest used posters and

blackboard. Some groups used both OHP and PowerPoint. In contrast, for the Semester 2

presentation, most groups used the OHP and no group used PowerPoint since they did not

have easy access to the data projector and the lab manager's computer expertise. Just like

their teachers', most of the students' transparencies were computer-printed. During their

Semester 1 presentation, one student even apologized to the audience for using hand-

written transparencies. Interestingly, she said that this was what her other teacher usually

did, which elicited laughter from many of the audience members who were taking the

same course. Throughout the year, only a few groups prepared handouts for their

presentations. Additionally, a few students dressed formally in suits for their task

performance. After one group's presentation, Izzat commented:

Excerpt 6.2

Even the way you - dressed up for the occasion - this is one of the things that presenters
do at least here -1 don't know how you do things in Japan... Even in class we do - dress
up a bit. What that does is that - it tells the audience you are serious about what you're
doing. You're taking - for instance, in their case, they're taking their research seriously.

This task was similar to show and tell in that both speaker-topic and speaker-listener distances were
6 8

relatively small (Mohan, 1986).

224
 That tells us that we should treat it seriously too. But if you come in slippers and T-shirts
- people may think oh if you are not interested in what you're doing, why should I listen
to it. It sends that kind of message? (Class 3, November 23, 2000)

This comment suggests that the teacher valued student attitudes toward the task in

addition to critical reflection and interaction with the audience as reported in Chapter 4.

In the rest of the present chapter, we will examine the discourse features of students' oral

presentations.

6.2 Ideational Reflection

As we saw in Chapter 2, an act of meaning is constituted of ideational reflection

and interpersonal action (Mohan, in press; Wells, 1999a; see also van Lier, 1988 for a

relevant discussion). In this section, we will examine the ideational aspects of students'

presentations.

6.2.1 Explaining the Rationale for the Study

Students explained their choice of topics especially in their Semester 1

presentations and stated the purpose of their studies especially in their Semester 2

presentations. Recall that the Semester 1 task required students to report on their

experience as volunteers and their learning and discoveryfromthis experience whereas

the Semester 2 task required them to report on findings of their research. As such, many

students approached the former task primarily as volunteers and learners and the latter

task primarily as researchers. 69

Excerpt 6.3 shows how Ringo explained the purposes of her group's research

whereas Excerpt 6.4 shows how Yoshino explained her group's choice of research topic.

There were exceptions. For example, as Chapter 7 will report, Otome and her partner Chie made their
Semester 1 presentation based on their survey study. Also, Yoshino expressed in her Semester 1 journal her
dilemma between the role of an observer and that of a volunteer.

225
Excerpt 6.3

Ringo: There are three purposes of focusing on First Nations. Firstly (9.5) umm I have
wanted to write graduation thesis about First Nations in Canada. Some of you know
- umm I mainly study anthropology in Japan. So I wanted- umm I was very-1 am very
interested in First Nations. Secondly - uh we learned First Nations issues last term. So
we know there are some serious issues of First Nations - like discriminations, and land
issues. (2.6) Umm Otome and I wanted to confirm uh if such serou- serious issues
still exist. (1.5) And thirdly - some Canadians are not interested in First Nations.
Actually -1 have never talked about First Nations with my Canadian friends. - And one
Canadian said - there are no First Nation issues. So we wanted to know the reality.
(November 23, 2000)

Excerpt 6.4

Yoshi: Today we'll- we will introduce (0.7) we'll talk about (1.2) our research project? (1.3) Our
topic is the i- ideal environment - for the food service [in'dAStri] (0.5) from musicians -
and customers si- perspective. (0.6) The reason (0.5) why - we chose this topic, - is
because - to know - what kind of environment will be ideal and comfortable - for
everyone - that is to know - what is the elements - which make people comfortable. (0.8)
And (0.6) to suggest - the concept of ideal environment. (Class 3, March 23, 2001)

Excerpt 6.5 was a unique example in that since they could not obtain volunteer positions,

the presenter conducted an interview study along with her partner, building on their

classmates' presentations. What is striking about this excerpt is that Haruka does not

merely outline the purposes of their talk, but "creates a space" (Swales & Feak, 1994) for

their presentation.

Excerpt 6.5

Haru: So like we mentioned, we didn't volunteer, so we don't -really have - something to talk
about it, (0.6) but we got a question. (0.7) As I heard - your presentation so hard, we
found volunteering in Canada and Japan is so different (0.7) in many ways. <Izzat: Uh-
huh> But -1- we don't know how different it is. So why you think - it is different -
uh: they are different. (0.5) So - to find the reason - we Japanese think that (0.5)
volunteering in Japan and Canada is very different, (0.4) we had interviews with -
some Canadian and Japanese people, who has volunteering experience before.
(Class 2, November 23, 2000)

In this example, Haruka makes several rhetorical moves to create a space. First, she

mentions what she (and her partner) found from her classmates' presentations; that is,

volunteering in Canada may differ from that in Japan in many ways. She then states that

226
they do not know how they might be different, thus posing a further (indirect) question to

be dealt with. Finally, she introduces their interview study conducted to address the

question. Although it was in the second semester that students systematically learned how

to conduct research, they seemed to have learned the importance of explaining their

choice of research topic in thefirstsemester. Several key students said that they decided

to explain their choice of topic in the Semester 1 presentation because of Izzat's

comments on theirfieldjournals. Moreover, a couple of them mentioned Abraham's

model presentation of Margaret Early's work where he explained the purposes of the

study (see, for example, Excerpt 4.23).

6.2.2 Displaying Newly Gained Information and Knowledge

As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, learning to communicate knowledge in socially

and culturally appropriate manners is deemed as an important part of academic discourse

socialization. Student-participants in the present study displayed their academic

knowledge in various ways. For instance, many students demonstrated their learning

from their fieldwork or research by classifying their newly gained information. In the

following excerpt, Shinpei, who volunteered in a branch office of a Japanese travel

agency, is explaining types of services that this agency provides.

Excerpt 6.6

Shin: And (1.0) umm ABC has - two: - types of job? (0.6) And one- one is the - the
outbound service? (0.9) It is (0.4) to arrange the - traveling, (0.5) uh who people live
- uh for people who live in - the Canada, (0.8) s- (0.6) so if you want to go traveling to
another place of Canada, (0.6) you (0.8) umm this company with- wi- will arrange you
about the airline tickets of - uh Canada- in Canada, umm hotels, (0.5) uh: (1.5) umm or
hotels? (0.6) This is the out- outbound service. (1.1) And the other one is (0.6)
inbound service? (0.5) It is (0.5) the job to (0.8) arrange traveling for people who live
in Japan, (0.4) so if you- (0.4) if your parents come here, (0.6) umm (0.4) and they- (0.6)
if they will use - ABC, (0.5) umm (0.9) it will be the inbound serv- service. (1.8) And
(0.5) ABC (1.2) main- mainly do the (0.8) in- inbound service, (1.0) because (0.5) this is-

227
 this company is (0.4) a: - Japanese company, (0.4) and head office is in Kyoto. (0.6) So
that's why (0.4) this company do (0.5) especially inbound services. (Class 2, November
9, 2000)

As can be seen, Shinpei names and defines two types of services, outbound and

inbound, thus constructing the knowledge structure of classification (Mohan, 1986). This

information was also presented visually on the blackboard:

(1) outbound

(2) inbound

Head office—Kyoto

Here, it is important to note that Shinpei's partner Misa wrote these words as he spoke to

the audience. This collaboration received positive feedback from the instructor after the

presentation as follows:

Excerpt 6.7

I like the fact that umm - uh they cooperated so well. Once one of them is talking the
other one is writing because uh that again caught our attention. Otherwise if you had all
the information there already -1 guess we would have wondered are we going to look at
Shinpei, or are we going to look at the board. So the way they did it was excellent... We-
we knew exactly for instance when Shinpei was talking about outbound. (Class 1,
November 9, 2000)

Izzat also commented that Misa's writing on the board might have been helpful

for people who did not know the words. In fact, some audience members looked up these

words in their electronic dictionaries as they listened to Shinpei's talk. Moreover, Izzat

said to the class that she too learned how the words are used in the tourism business.

Excerpt 6.8

And then they explained what outbound, inbound means. And honestly I learned two
new words. I knew the meaning but uh I didn't uh hear it in this context, so it's- it's
really good and I hope that you learned something new too. (Class 1, November 9, 2000)

Some other students displayed their knowledge by quoting word definitions from

dictionaries and references. Excerpt 6.9 shows how Ichiro performed this act.

228
Excerpt 6.9

Ichi: So our topic is uh difference- differences of identities between Canadians and Japanese.
(1.1) Uh (0.8) so: uh before uh moving on the topic uh let me uh explain the definition
of the- (0.9) of identity.

((several turns later))

Ichi: Okay? (2.2) Uh so according to the (0.6) uh: dictionary (0.5) uh (0.8) "identity-
identity is uh qualities and attitudes you have - that makes you feel that you have
your own characters and different from other people." (4.2) Uh (1.0) so that is in
short uh: identi- identity means something which makes us feel that (0.6) we have our
own character (0.5) and at the same time - we are different from others. Okay? (Class 1,
November 9, 2000)

Immediately after the quotation, Ichiro paraphrases the definition, substituting the words

"qualities and attitudes" with "something" and the second person pronouns "you" and

"your" with the first person pronouns "we" and "our."

Furthermore, many groups demonstrated their learning by citing credible sources

in their presentation, especially in Semester 2. Excerpt 6.10 is an example from Nana,

Shinpei, and Azumi's Semester 2 presentation about the homeless in Maple Tree City.

Shinpei used the United Nations' data in his Semester 2 presentation.

Excerpt 6.10

Shin: Uh (1.7) it's very (0.6) difficult to define the (1.1) homeless people, (0.5) because there
are many (0.5) categories of people, like (0.5) there are street youth people, (0.7) and also
there are hotel visitors. (0.6) So (1.0) it is- (0.8) these categories are not clear, (0.8) so it's
very difficult. But according to (1.3) the definition from the United Sta- umm United
Nation, (1.0) there are- (0.7) it's called- it is called (0.5) there are (0.5) twenty to (3.0)
forty (0.5) thousand uh homeless people in Canada. (2.7) And also - in Maple Tree
City - there are street youth people, and (0.5) homeless umm - people who stay in hotel
(1.1) ah hotel visitors, (0.8) but it's also - difficult to def- define - how- how many people
- are there. (Class 1, March 15, 2001)

In Language Fieldwork, especially in Language Fieldwork B, students had

opportunities to listen to the instructor's talk and have a group discussion about the

importance of assessing the credibility of information. Thus, Shinpei's act of citing the

UN's data was publicly recognized by the instructor as her post-task comments indicate:

229
Excerpt 6.11

Izzat: Another thing that I - ((clears her throat)) want to mention - it's also a nice comment, - is
that umm (1.3) your use of United Nations' definition of homelessness. (0.9) Uh: - the
reason why that is good is that - as (0.9) uh you- you have learned this - a lot. We talked
about it last term, and talked about it this term. And we (0.5) ((clears her throat)) talked
about umm (1.2) which- who do I believe. There are a lot of perspectives out there. There
are a lot of definitions out there. Whose definition is the right one. (0.7) Whose uh (0.5)
uh statement is the one- the right one to cite. Remember, that I said - "It depends on (1.2)
umm uh who is it that you are reading." You cannot - just cite any book that - you
bought... We have to cite legitimate - important source. Trustworthy source. Okay?
And in this case, the good thing about your definition is that yes United Nations. (0.5)
And United Nations is a very important organization. People - work there usually do
very serious work, (0.5) and they've done their research. They know how to define these
things. (0.6) And I think you did excellent work of (0.5) trying to use legitimate
important (0.6) uh: trustworthy sources to define your work. Okay? This is- I'm
mentioning this because it is important for all of us.. .when it comes to research we
need to - cite someone who knows - what he or she is talking about. Okay? So that's
very nice. (Class 1, March 15, 2001)

Here, Izzat not only gives an appraisal of the citation (e.g., "I think you did excellent

work," "that's very nice"), but also provides more explanations as to why this was an

important practice. Importantly, the teacher says to the class, "I am mentioning this

because it is important for all of us," thus making her comments relevant to other

students. This kind of metadiscourse was one of the attempts that Izzat made to

encourage her students to learn from each other.

6.2.3 Reporting Participants' Voices

Many groups conducted interviews and administered questionnaires as part of

their project work, and reported the voices of their research participants in their

presentations. In Excerpt 6.12, Yoshino reports the voice of the managers whom she and

her partner Maiko interviewed for their semester 2 project:

Excerpt 6.12

And next - we - asked her (1.2) what- ((clears her throat)) what image - do you think (0.6)
the manager has (0.6) for- of - your music? She said (0.5) I don't know. (3.9) And (1.1)
and next we a- asked - we asked her (0.6) what's image (0.5) do you think - the
customers - have for your- your music? And she said - she hoped to become - she hope
customers to become alive, - from her music. (Class 3, March 23, 2001)

230
In this example, she uses both direct speech ("She said -1 don't know.") and indirect

speech ("she said.. .she hope customers to become alive, from her music.") to project the

manager's voice.

6.2.4 Connecting Theory and Practice

As we saw in Chapters 4 and 5, one of the major requirements of the Semester 1

presentation task was for students to draw connections between what they experienced in

thefieldand what they learned about the subject matter from the lectures and textbooks.

In other words, students were required to discuss in their presentations how their field

experiences might relate to the theory of intercultural communication. Excerpt 6.13

illustrates how Mina creates this intertextual link between her observation at a preschool

and the subject matter content.

Excerpt 6.13

Mina: Lastly - we talk about our experience (1.8) umm uh we talk about how to relate- how to
our ex- uh how our experience - relate to intercultural communication - from our
lecture. (1.0) In Chapter fi- in Chapter 5 of the textbook (0.5) we learned about non-
verbal communication (0.9) we can understand (1.5) the importance of - non-verbal
communication (1.2) through uh non-verbal communication - throughout - our
volunteer experience. (1.5) Because it is difficult for us to (0.6) communicate with
children in words, (0.7) so we need to use non-verbal communication. (0.7) And for
example (0.5) in my case (0.9) I experience - non-verbal communication by picture.
((Izzat laughs)) Before - you go to the pool, the teacher showed - children - picture - of
child- picture of pool (0.8) by one person. (1.0) When she showed them (0.7) picture
(0.8) some- then - umm when she showed them (0.6) some children began to cry. (0.7)
They didn't like swimming. <Izzat: Mmm.> I found - showing picture - makes
children understand (0.5) they have to go to the ne- go to the pool next (0.8) they
could image pool - by picture easily. <Izzat: Mmm.> It could be said - non-verbal
communication is held - between - teacher and children. (Class 2, November 16,
2000)

In this example, Minafirstrecapitulates briefly what they learned from the

textbook. She then tells the audience what she observed as the teacher showed a picture

of a swimming pool to her pupils, some of whom started to cry. Finally, she tells the

231
audience what she found from this experience, suggesting that non-verbal communication

had taken place between the teacher and pupils.

6.3 Students' Efforts to Self-Regulate Their Performance

Students used several strategies to self-regulate their own task performance.

These include using note cards and transparencies, repeating to remember, and using

private speech to assist memory and self-correct L2 production.

6.3.1 Use of Notes

Use of notes was one of the most commonly used self-regulating strategies among

the Keishin students. Most of the note users reported that they wrote on their cards key

words and phrases mainly in English. For example, Yoshino used this strategy in her

Semester 1 presentation. Some groups including Kiku, Nana, and Shinya's group

reported that their notes included "performance pointers" (Billingham, 2003) or self-

addressed utterances in the form of directives (e.g., "Don't forget eye contact," "Stop

here," "Create the flow," "Ask the audience"), or adverbs and nouns (e.g., clearly, loudly,

slowly, eye contact, pause, role play, dramatization). Apparently, the students prepared

such notes to self-regulate their own task performance. Another key student, Shinpei,

made an interesting use of note cards in his Semester 1 presentation. For example, he

stated:

Excerpt 6.14

Shin: 1-1 couldn't - umm make mistake (0.5) because - umm (0.6) they will (0.9) use umm
(1.1) the head office will (0.5) use - that list (0.5) for check - the hotels. So - if I make -
mistake (0.5) it will be very (0.5) disadvantage - for: the company. (Class 2, November 9,
2000)

232
To produce these utterances, Shinpei put something like this on one of his cards:
70

Table 6.2: Shinpei's Notes

6.2a English-based Japanese word order 6.2b Japanese word order

( 1 ) deki na ka tta machigai wa (1) machigai wa deki na ka tta
(2) naze nara kaisha ga tsukau sono (2) sono risuto wa hoteru o chekku suru
risuto wa hoteru o chekku suru tame tame ni kaisha ga tsukau
(3) moshi machigai o sure ba totemo (3) moshi machigai o sure ba kaisha ni
futsugoo kaisha ni totte. totte totemo futsugoo

As Shinpei himself mentioned later, the Japanese in Table 6.2a would look strange to

native speakers of Japanese. Because of the SOV and left-branching structure (Kuno,
71

1973) of the Japanese language, the same proposition would normally be expressed as in

Table 6.2b. After deciding what to say, Shinpei first prepared Japanese sentences to

express what he had to say, and then reorganized the words in the English word and

clause order so as to make his L2 production easier. In other words, it was a strategy to

reduce the cognitive load of the L2 presentation task. Shinpei said that he believed that by

translating his "English-looking Japanese," he could speak more naturally than he would

by simply reading notes written in English.

6.3.2 Self-Repetition

Another self-regulating strategy commonly used in the Keishin community was

self-repetition. Many students repeated their utterances to correct their errors and to

remember the content and form of their speech.

Unfortunately, Shinpei threw away his note cards. The above notes were reconstructed on the basis of the
reflective interview with Shinpei conducted after his Semester 1 presentation.
71
This term is often used to refer to genitives, adjectives, and relative clauses that precede the head noun in
Japanese (Kuno, 1973). However, it can be used to refer to other clausal constructions (Yamamoto-Wilson,
1997).

233
6.3.2.1 Repeating to Self-Correct

The first three excerpts illustrate how the speakers used repetition to self-correct

their perceived grammatical errors whereas the last one shows how the speaker used

repetition to self-correct her perceived pragmatic error. The main point here is that

students used repetition for self-regulatory purposes, rather than whether such efforts

resulted in accurate and appropriate language. In Excerpt 6.15, Rei is attempting to say,

"I don't have any stuff the children made."

Excerpt 6.15

Rei: So (0.8) I'm sorry but I have- uh - don't have (0.9) umm no- no stuff (0.9) children
make (0.5) children made but (4.8) but Fumie can join in (0.6) uh some (girls) that
made some stuffs, (Class 2, November 9, 2000)

As can be seen, the speaker made two self-corrections, "don't have" and "children

made," The first attempt resulted in a double negative, which according to Rei was not

exactly what she wanted to say because it was "grammatically wrong" (November,

2000). But the second attempt solved the problem with tense agreement by changing the

verb from "make" to "made."

Excerpt 6.16

Mina: Lastly - we talk about our experience (1.8) umm uh we talk about how to relate- how
to our ex- uh how our experience - relate to intercultural communication - from our
lecture. (Class 2, November 16, 2000)

Excerpt 6.16 illustrates how the speaker struggled with the word order in the subordinate

clause following the "how." After a couple of attempts, she solved this problem although

she left the problem in subject-verb agreement ("our experience relate") unchanged.

Excerpt 6.17 shows a self-regulatory process wherein Ken changes the SVOO word order

to the SVO word order by putting the indirect object "them" after the direct object

"space," using the preposition "for."

234
Excerpt 6.17

Ken: A:nd then - ((clears his throat)) my job was uh - to help (1.3) stilt performance (1.2) by
making them (1.3) space- uh making space for them to walk. (Class 2, November 16,
2000)

In Excerpt 6.18, Yoshino first utters, "not gonna," to describe the restaurant

managers' action (or inaction in this case). She then changes this to "not going to."

Excerpt 6.18

Yoshi: And (1.4) managers ((clears her throat)) is not gonna - uh not go- not going to - change
(0.5) their i- image for this restaurant. (Class 3, March 23, 2001)

According to Yoshino, her ELI teacher told her class that it is not appropriate to

use colloquial forms of English such as "gonna" for "going to" and "wanna" for "want

to" in oral presentations (and writing) because they are too informal. Remembering this

voice (Bakhtin, 1986), which she had heard three months earlier, Yoshino made the

above correction. In short, whereas thefirstthree examples (Excerpts 6.15, 6.16, & 6.17)

presented in this section show the speakers' use of repetition to improve their

grammatical accuracy of their speech, Excerpt 6.18 shows the speaker's use of repetition

to improve the appropriacy of her speech, which she had learned from her ESL teacher a

few months earlier.

6.3.2.2 Repeating to Remember

Another important use of repetition was made by many of the Keishin students.

For example, Kiku commented at his post-task interview that he sometimes repeated his

utterances when he forgot what to say next or could not come up with appropriate

English expressions.

Excerpt 6.19

Kiku: So - by uh: respecting other persons, (0.7) in our case not to speak Japanese in uh: uh: in
front of people from uh: people uh: who are speaking another language - not Japanese.
(0.8) That means - "to put ourselves in (2.2) ((looks at the screen)) others' place."

235
 ((looking back at the audience)) Do you know uh: what I mean? (0.7) So someone else's
feeling. (1.1) Someone else's feeling. So (0.8) "wha- what- what- what is she - thinking
about if I speak Japanese here." (Class 3, November 16, 2000)

As he listened to the audio-recording of his group's Semester 1 presentation, Kiku

mentioned that what was happening in the above excerpt was that since he forgot what to

say next after asking the audience if they were following him ("Do you know what I

mean?"), he repeated the phrase "someone else's feeling" so as to "buy time" (interview,

November 19, 2000) to remember the content and form of his speech. In other words,

Kiku employed the repetition as a "time-creating device" (Bygate, 1987) to cope with the

cognitive demand of the presentation task (i.e., on-line planning of planned L2 speech) 72

after coping with the interactional demand (i.e., checking of the audience's

comprehension) of it (see van Lier, 1988).

6.3.3 Use of Private Speech

Several students were observed to use apparently self-addressed speech during

their presentations. In the following excerpt, Rei, who did her volunteer work in an after-

school childcare program at WPU, is talking about children's use of computers in Japan:

Excerpt 6.20

1 Rei: And in Japan, (1.0) umm (1.4) maybe ah it's also my guess, but uh (1.0) uh technical
aspect (0.5) maybe government umm promote to use computer, (0.8) and (1.7) as
soon as (0.4) as soon as ((softly)) ja nai [no] (1.0) as (0.7) early? (0.4)

2 Izzat: As early as. [Yeah.

3 Rei: [As early as possible.

4 Izzat: Yeah. Yeah. (Class 2, November 9, 2000)

In Line 1, Rei seems to be having difficulty producing utterances as indicated by

the frequent occurrence of relatively long pauses. Toward the end of this line, she utters

72
See Wendel (1997) for a distinction between on-line planning and off-line planning.

236
the phrase "as soon as" twice, and then says in Japanese "ja nai" a little softly. This

seemingly self-addressed Japanese speech seems to have served both cognitive and social

functions (see Wells, 1998b, for a relevant discussion). Cognitively, it seems to have

helped Rei to regulate her own L2 production. Socially, it simply might have signaled to

most of the audience members that it was not "as soon as" which Rei wanted to say.

Following the Japanese utterance, Rei pauses for a second and starts to produce

the phrase "as early [as]." This is repeated and confirmed by Izzat in the following line.

Hearing Izzat's repetition of the phrase, Rei produces a complete version of the phrase

herself, to which Izzat gives positive feedback in Line 4. After this presentation, Rei

commented that since she was talking about early education, she thought that the word

"early" would be a more appropriate choice in the context. Interestingly, she reported that

although she had given thought to what to say, Rei had not spent much time to plan how

to express the content neither with her group members or individually (see Chapter 5).

In Excerpt 6.21, which was taken from her groups' Semester 2 presentation,

Azumi is reflecting on one of the problems that they faced in the process of preparing for

their research:

Excerpt 6.21

Azum: But (0.6) we have- (1.8) mm (0.6) ((softly and quickly)) find found found ((back in
regular volume)) We have found (0.4) the problem, - problem - because (1.3) our interest
is different. (Class 1, March 15, 2001)

As the first three pauses indicate, Azumi seems to be having trouble remembering the

past participle of the verb "find" here. Interestingly, she seems to utter to herself, "find

found found." She reported that like many other students, she was required in junior high

school to memorize a list of common irregular English verbs and their conjugations like

237
the below by chanting aloud across the list, that is, in the order of the basic form, past

tense, and past participle.

Table 6.3: Irregular Verbs

Basic Form Past Tense Past Participle

fight fought fought

find found found

Faced with the memory problem, Azumi drew upon this learned knowledge about

English grammar, which seemed to have resurfaced as private speech in the above

excerpt. With this psychological tool, she produced the present perfect construction

successfully. No other students were observed to use this kind of private speech;

however, many of the key students and their partners reported that they made use of the

irregular verb list in their minds when they experienced difficulty remembering the

accurately conjugated form of a verb. In other words, they made use of their inner

resources (van Lier, 1996; Vygotsky, 1987) to accomplish their tasks.

6.4 Peer Collaboration in the Task Performance

In Chapter 5, we saw how several key students and their partners collaborated as

they prepared for their oral presentations. In this section, we will examine ways in which

students collaborated while performing this task. Hence, the focus is interpersonal actions

among the presenters. These include (1) use of verbal transitions between speakers, (2)

use of back-stage talk, and (3) joint-construction of utterances.

6.4.1 Transitions between Speakers

One type of peer collaboration has to do with verbal transitions between the

speakers. In the following excerpt, having finished sharing his volunteer job-hunting

238
experience, Yuji announces that Koyuki will next talk about her volunteer work. Koyuki

then responds with an acknowledgement ("Thank you.").

Excerpt 6.22

1 Yuji: Uh: (0.9) yeah that's (2.2) uh next, (0.5) uh::: Koyuki's - explain about (1.0) [her
volunteer. 73

2 Koyu: [Yeah. (0.5) Thank you. ((operates PowerPoint)) (10.5) Okay. My- my title is what
intercultural love gave me. Learning - through intercultural marriage workshops.
(Class 3, November 23, 2000)

Interestingly, Koyuki reported that she first noticed this exchange in Kiku's

group's presentation, which she had seen in the previous week (see Excerpt 6.25 below

for an example). She thought that it was a good way for the presenters to switch roles,

and subsequently suggested to her group members that they "follow Kiku's group's

example" (Interview, December 1, 2000, original in Japanese). It should be noted in

passing that the original word Koyuki used in this Japanese comment was "minarau,"

which literally means learning by seeing (Shinmura, 1998).

Excerpt 6.23 shows how Mai handed over the floor to Yoshino in their Semester 1

presentation on their experience helping a local organization prepare for a Halloween

event:

Excerpt 6.23

1 Mai: ((looking at Yoshino)) So Yoshino, - could you explain what is a Canadian Dream
Community? (2.9)

2 Yoshi: ((smiling)) Okay, ((nods)) The Canadian Dream community we worked for is an
(1.6) non-profit charitable organization - that creates part- participatory community
based performance and festival and (1.9) celebrations. (2.3) (Class 2, November 23,
2000)

What Yuji means here is volunteer work. The English word "volunteer" has been borrowed into
Japanese. It is often used to refer not only to people who work for others voluntarily or free of charge, but
also to the work itself.

239
 In Line 1, having finished her part, Mai publicly asks Yoshino to explain what the

organization is, to which Yoshino responds with a smile and yes. This exchange is

contrasted below with the above-reported one between Yuji and Koyuki:

Table 6.4: Transitions between Speakers

Excerpt 6.22 Excerpt 6.23

Speaker 1 Public statement informing the Request made publicly to the next
audience who will talk next about speaker to explain her part
what (Statement) (Command)
Speaker 2 Responds with a thank you Responds with an okay
(Acknowledgement) (Compliance)

These collaborative efforts seem to have been highly valued by the instructor. For

example, after Tomo, Koyuki, and Yuji's presentation, she said:

Excerpt 6.24

Izzat: ((to the presenters)) Good cooperation! Yes. Yeah your language was very good too. In
the sense that you were able to - say NEXT who's going to do this, next who's going.
Yeah. It's- it's very good that you were able to - even use the appropriate language
to cooperate. Sometimes we do corporate but you forget to say - things. Very good!
Excellent. (Class 3, November 23, 2000)

Furthermore, Sakura, who chose to give a talk about how to make a "good" presentation

during the pre-departure orientation for the following group of Keishin students in May

2001, suggested that presenters make smooth speaker changes between the speakers by

using transitional words and phrases.

6.4.2 Use of LI Backstage Talk

The following excerpt shows two types of collaboration in which Kiku, Nana, and

Shiny a engaged during their actual presentation. Firstly, just like Yuji and Koyuki in

Excerpt 6.22, they had planned and rehearsed their turn-taking. As mentioned earlier, in

fact, it was Kiku's group that served as a model for Koyuki's group. In the following

excerpt, Nana announces that Shinya is the next speaker and what he is going to talk

240
about, and Shinya then thanks Nana for introducing him and takes his turn. Kiku and

Nana explained in an interview that after observing other groups' presentations, they

decided to do this exchange to make smooth transitions and avoid the "awkward silence"

between turns. Kiku also commented that this made the presentation more challenging,

for each member had to know well enough to announce what the others would say, but he

felt that thanks to the extended discussion they had about the content of the presentation,

they were able to execute the plan successfully. The second type of collaboration related

to students' use of Japanese. As can be seen in Excerpt 6.25, Kiku gives two pieces of

advice to Nana on her volume of speech ("Speak up") and behavior ("You should look

up") and Nana accepts them both. This can be considered as a type of "backstage" talk

(Goffman, 1959) in that although uttered on stage, it was addressed only to another

member of the presenting group, as indicated by Kiku's use of whispering.

Excerpt 6.25

1 Nana: So next Shinya is going to talking about (0.6) more specific detail about when
students are (0.6) stop conversation, ((moves backward and stands next to Kiku))
2 Kiku: ((whispering in Japanese)) Ne Nana [Hey Nana] (xxx) Motto koe dase - motto koe
dase - Ue o mita hoo ga ii [Speak up - Speak up - you should look up.]

3 Nana: ((whispering in Japanese)) Un. [Okay.]

4 Shin: Uh: thank you, Nana, ((moves forward)) (Class 3, November 16, 2000)

Although this intra-group exchange might not have been heard by the audience,

fortunately, it was captured by a tape-recorder placed close to the presenters. Kiku, Nana,

and Shinya reported that they had this type of LI backstage talk mainly to deliver better

performance several times during their presentation. Such efforts seem to have been

appreciated by their teacher as these post-task comments indicate:

241
Excerpt 6.26

Izzat: ((looking at the audience)) The other thing is that uh again for the people who will be
presenting - is (0.9) make a conscious effort of making your- yeah your- physically your
voice really heard? .. .Uh: the point is that - if you pay attention to that - you can control
your voice. Then you can decide how loud you should be (0.5) so that everybody can
hear you. (0.8) Okay? So ((referring to Kiku, Nana, and Shinya)) they seem to have
made uh: a conscious effort of doing that. That's great. (Class 3, November 16, 2000)

It is important to note that the type of backstage talk reported above was not

found in many other presentations; however, several other students reported that their

partners gave them encouragements in Japanese from behind or beside themselves when

they stumbled over words in their presentations, which "reassured" them and helped them

to "come through."

6.4.3 Joint Production of Utterances

Students sometimes helped their partners to produce L2 utterances. In the

following example, Shunsuke (hereafter Shun) is explaining what they consider to be the

differences between Easterners and Westerners. In Line 1, Shun is having difficulty

coming up with an appropriate English expression as evidenced by the frequent pauses

and rising intonation.

Excerpt 6.27

1 Shun: ((referring to the role-playing that they are about to perform)) This is er (0.5) explain
the (1.1) difference, between Easterners, - and Westerners. (0.6) Uh: how to (1.5)
how to: (1.1) [solve? Solve?
2 Taka: [Cope- cope with.

3 Shun: Cope?

4 Taka: Cope with -

5 Shun: Cope with, uh: - [their negative life event.

6 Taka: [Yeah. (Class 3, November 23, 2000)

242
 In Line 2, Takaaki (hereafter Taka) says to Shun, "cope with," providing him with

an appropriate L2 expression to use (i.e., the verb plus the collocationally appropriate

preposition "with"). Shun then repeats the verb with a rising intonation, which results in

Taka's second uttering of the phrasal verb in Line 4. Shun then uses the expression

adding an object. This is followed by Taka's confirmation. In short, Shun produced the

utterance in Line 5 with Taka's assistance.

6.5 Interpersonal Actions and Strategies to Involve the Audience

At the group meetings and interviews, students expressed their wish to make their

presentation interesting, interactive, and "participatory." To this end, they performed a

number of interpersonal actions (Mohan, in press; Wells, 1999a) and employed a variety

of involvement strategies (Tannen, 1989) in their task performances, which Tannen

(1989) defined as linguistic strategies that both reflect and create interpersonal

involvement in ordinary conversation as well as in literary discourse. These include

(1) using small talk, (2) employing questions directed toward the audience, (3) repetition,

(4) role-playing and demonstration, and (5) story-telling.

6.5.1 Using Small Talk

Some groups used the first few seconds of their presentations to make small talk,

which was intended to get their audience focused on and interested in what they were

about to say. For instance, Hitomi, one of Rei's partners for the Semester 2 presentation,

used this strategy.

Excerpt 6.28

1 Hito: Okay. Uh: good morning everyone.

2 • Ss: Good morning, ((some look sleepy))

3 Hito: A-ha-ha. ((laughs))

243
4 Ss: ((laugh))

5 Hito: I know you guys are very tired of the: lots of lots of work. (0.4) Right?

6 ((Izzat laughs))

7 Hito: Lots of presentation, lots of reports. (0.4) But (0.6) you can eat (0.6) [during our

presentation.

8 [((many students laugh))

9 Hito: And then (0.7) please wa- wake up. ((laughs))

10 ((many students laugh))

11 Hito: Just keep (0.7) up. Umm and listen our presentation. (0.8)

12: ((some students smile))

13: Hito: Thank you. (Class 1, March 15, 2001)

In this excerpt, Hitomi first greets the audience with "Good morning, everyone,"

since it was a first period class. Receiving a somewhat unenergetic response, she

expresses her sympathy with her classmates who were probably tiredfromthe many

assignments that they had to do for their courses. Notice that she uses the word "right" as

a question tag to invite confirmation from the audience (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-

Freeman, 1983). In Line 7, she tells the audience that they can eat during their

presentation, which elicits laughter from many of the audience members. Between Lines

9 and 12, Hitomi elicits laughter and smiles from the audience by asking them to wake up

and keep awake. Thus, Hitomi interacted with the audience by performing a series of

speech acts mostly through use of imperatives.

After the presentation, Hitomi said, "When I heard their voice, Ifiguredthat they

were tired due to lack of sleep. We are busy with our assignments and stay up late these

days. So I wanted to focus everyone's attention on us somehow" (interview, March 15,

2001, my traslation). As a result, she improvised the talk above. Her performance was

244
well received at least by Izzat, who later commented at her end-of-semester interview that

she thought that this was a good way to start a presentation. In contrast, some students

commented that her speech was too casual for an academic presentation.

6.5.2 Employing Questions Directed Toward the Audience

Perhaps the most frequently used strategy among the Keishin students was

employing questions directed toward their audience. The following excerpt illustrates

how Ringo employed this involvement strategy in the Semester 2 presentation she gave

with Otome:

Excerpt 6.29

1 Ringo: Our topic is "I am proud of who I am - socialization of Totem Nations." Do you have
any ideas about our presentation from this topic? (1.5)

2 Ss: ((some smile and nod))

3 Ringo: Are you sure?

4 Ss: ((some smile and nod))

5 Ringo: Umm Totem Nations is one of the band of First Nations in Canada. And Otome will
talk about - what is Nations more detail - later. (1.3) And do you know what is
socialization?

6 Ss: ((some smile and shake their heads))

7 Ringo: No? (3.5) Okay. (1.8) (Class 1, March 29, 2001)

In this excerpt, Ringo asks the audience several questions to check their

understandings. Ringo, along with her partner Otome, decided to use this strategy in their

presentation to make their presentation more interactive. Although none of the audience

members respond verbally, many respond nonverbally through smiles, nods, and head

shakes, thus showing their attentiveness to Ringo's turns (van Lier, 1992, 1996,1998a).

Students addressed their questions not only to the whole class, but also to individual

members. For example, Tomo addressed his questions to classmates and the instructor in

245
his Semester 1 presentation in which he shared his volunteer job-hunting experiences. To

contextualize the following excerpt (6.30), he is showing one of the questions that he was

asked by the volunteer coordinator at his interview for a position in the kitchen at a street

youth center, which he unfortunately failed:

Excerpt 6.30
1 Tomo: The final question was that, ((referring to the OHP)) (0.5) It was very impressive to
me. (0.6) Cause (0.9) ((reading from the screen)) "in- in the kitchen you found a
street youth - you don't know - looking at bags of other volunteers." (1.0) And uh the
- my volunteer coordinator asked me uh (0.8) how will you approach him?

2 Izzat: Hmm

3 Tomo: Yeah. (0.7) So Izzat, - what do you think. (0.8) How will you approach him. (1.2)

4 Izzat: If he was looking at the volunteers' bags? =

5 Tomo: = Yeah. (0.5)

6 Izzat: Uh: (0.6) I-1 would - go ask- introduce myself to him, (0.4) and ask who he is, (0.6)

and then say how can I help you, to see if he's in any (need). (1.5)

7 Tomo: Yeah. (1.5) That's the best answer.

8 Kiku: Oh:! ((laughs))

9 Izzat: Oh [thank you.

10 Ss: [((laugh))

11 Izzat: Did I get the job? ((laughs))

12 Tomo: Yeah. (1.7) Yeah. (Class 3, November 23, 2000)

Surprisingly, some groups called on the researcher in their presentations as well.

Excerpt 6.31 was taken from the Semester 1 presentation made by Koki and his partner

Haruka. Koki asks the researcher whether he would like to do volunteer work after his

retirement:

246
Excerpt 6.31

1 Koki: Next, uh: I wan- let's- (0.6) I want to talk about - proof? Two proof? (0.5) One of
them is (0.4) uh: this, ((points at the OHP screen)) (1.1) retired people want to
volunteering, or not? (1.2) Uh: (4.5) what do you want to do after retire, (0.9) uh
(0.4) what do you want to do after you retire, Masaki? (0.6)

2 Ss: ((laugh))

3 Masa: ((laughing)) After I retire?

4 Koki Yep.

5 Ham: Yep.

6 Masa: ((laughing)) Well - it's hard to imagine myself retiring. But -

7 Koki: [((laugh))

8 Izzat: [((laughs))

9 Masa: Me?

10 Koki: Yeah. You wanna have a - volunteering? After you retire?

11 Masa: Hmm (0.8) I'm not sure. But (0.6) maybe not. [I want to -

12 Koki: [Yeah. (0.7) Uh: maybe in general-

13 Ss: ((laugh))

14 Koki: in general in Japan, (0.6) uh: our answer is no, because (0.6) we tend to: (0.4) want to
enjoy (0.5) our life, and take a rest? (0.9) ((looking at the researcher)) It's true? (0.6)
For you. (0.5)

15 Masa: Yes.

16 Ss: ((laugh))

17 Masa: Yes.

18 Koki: Umm ((laughs)) A:nd take a rest. (Class 2, November 23, 2000)

In Line 2, many members of the audience, including the instructor and the

researcher, laugh. Some students commented that they could not help laughing because

they had not expected Koki to ask the researcher a question in their talk. Koki and his

partner also said later that they "wanted do something a little different from other groups"

247
(November 23, 2000). In fact, they were the first group to address a question to the

researcher (although another group framed a similar move as a command) in the actual

performance of the presentation. In sum, using questions addressed to the audience was

one of the strategies that Keishin students employed to make their presentation more

interactive and participatory.

6.5.3 Repeating to Emphasize

In addition to the self-regulatory functions reported above, students' repetition of

their own utterances seems to have had an interpersonal function. More specifically,

students often repeated points that they wished to emphasize, in Excerpt 6.32, Shun

repeatedly states, "Westerner(s) have more positive attitude to negative events than

Easterners."

Excerpt 6.32

Shun: We can say - fro:m (0.6)firstresearch, (0.9) Westerner have more positive attitude,
(0.4) to negative events than (0.6) Easterners. (1.4) Can you understand? (2.3)
Westerners have more positive -attitude - to negative events than Easterners. (1.2)
Can you understand? (Class 3, November 23, 2000)

After the presentation, Shun commented that he made a conscious effort to repeat key

words because he believed that one of the most important things in giving a presentation

was to get across one's points to the audience. This is why he offered the repeated use of

the comprehension check, "Can you understand?"

Another example comes from the Semester 1 group presentation made by

Yoshino's group about their volunteer experience at a public art festival. In the following

excerpt, Yoshino's partner, Mei, is making her concluding remarks:

Excerpt 6.33

Mei: I can say that (1.4) uh cooperative sprits can be - leading - lead success, (0.6) you
know actually - the parade were (0.5) quite big event. More than three thousand people

248
 came there, - and support- were - the parade were supported by (0.5) only local peoples -
as a volunteers (0.5) and also I can say that (0.5) in Maple Tree City (0.6) the level of
local people's cooperation is absolutely high, (0.6) I can say that again, - a
cooperative spirits can be leading a great success, - in Maple Tree City the level of
local people's cooperation is absolutely high. (November 16, 2000)

Interestingly, Mei announces that she would repeat her utterances by using the phrase "I

can say that again." This was a planned act. She had told her group members at their

rehearsal that she would repeat them to emphasize the point.

As the above examples suggest, most of the repetitions were self-conducted.

Excerpt 6.34 is a unique example where one speaker repeats his partner's utterance.

Excerpt 6.34

1 Shun: Okay. (0.4) So from now, I- want to talk about, (0.4) [p3:'po:s] - of our research.

(0.5)

2 Taka: Purpose of our research.

3 Shun: U:mm - ((attempting to continue his speech)

4 ((audience members laugh))

5 Izzat: ((laughing)) Why? (0.5)

6 Taka: Just - em- emphasize, ((laughs))

7 Izzat: Oh okay, ((laughs)) (Class 3, November 23, 2000)

In Line 1, Shun announces what he will discuss. As the transcription shows, he

mispronounced the word "purpose" here. Taka then repeats the last four words of his

partner's utterance, which makes some of the audience members including Izzat laugh.

Interestingly, Izzat asks Taka why he repeated Shun's utterance (Line 5). In Line 6, Taka

answers that he did so to emphasize the point, explaining his action. After the class, Taka

commented that as he noticed Shun's mispronunciation of the word, he was afraid that

the audience might miss it, suggesting that he attempted to correct his partner's

249
phonological error. Thus, Taka's repetition was intended to serve two functions: to

emphasize what Shun has said and to implicitly correct his error.

6.5.4 Role-Playing and Demonstration

Role-playing and demonstration were also employed commonly in the Keishin

community. According to Crookall and Oxford (1990), "a role-play is always a

simulation. The participant in a role-play activity is representing and experiencing some

character type known in everyday life, and the interaction between participants is a

simulation of a social situation" (p. 19). For the Semester 1 presentation, six out of the 25

groups or pairs performed role-playing while six groups did demonstrations of some sort.

For instance, Kiku, Nana, and Shingo decided to incorporate role-playing into their

presentation in order to make it easier to follow and more entertaining. In the following

excerpt, Kiku and Nana are acting out, and Shingo is explaining what is happening:

Excerpt 6.35

1 Kiku: Uh: I'm a: Keishin student and - uh: she is a: WPU student in Japanese class. (1.3)
A:nd uh: urn I'm gonna talk - we- we gonna talk in Japanese coz what happened in
Japanese.

2 ((several turns later))

3 Shin: And next one is uh: (0.7) character. (1.5) Okay. Let's go on to the next - example.
(0.8)

4 Kiku: Thanks. (1.1) ((in role as a conversation partner)) Watashi wa mukashi wakai toki ni
(1.2) tar.kusan shoosetsu oyonda n desuyo.[Wakari masu! [When I was young I
read a lot of novels. Do you understand?]

5 Nana: ((in role as a student of Japanese)) [Sho- Shoosetsu tte nan desu ka! [What is
shoosetsu!]

6 Kiku: Shoosetsu [Novel] ((writes the Chinese characters for the word.)) (4.0) Shoosetsu wa
wakari masu ka! [Do you understand this (shoosetsu)?] ((shows the written
characters.))

7 Nana: AH: It's means it is novel. (1.9)

8 Kiku: Yes. That's right.

250
9 Nana: Okay. Thank you. (1.1)

10 Shin: Like this. When using characters, (0.7) we can (1.4) make ourselves understood in
uh: - Japanese. (0.8) Because - character is a: common culture - within uh: (0.8) with
China or Taiwan or Japan. Even - pronunciation is different, but (0.6) as meaning
(0.6) we have uh: same meaning. (Class 3, November 16, 2001)

The purpose of this particular role-playing was to illustrate the usefulness of

Chinese characters in communicating with WPU students taking Japanese lessons as

most of them were Chinese speakers. At one of their group meetings, Kiku told the others

that he had learned this strategy through his observation of Izzat's use of Chinese

characters in her lectures (see Chapter 4).

In Semester 2, Nana and Shinpei performed role-playing with their partner Azumi

in their presentation in which they reflected on their research processes.

Excerpt 6 . 3 6

Nana: And the (1.7) second parts of our discussion is (0.8) we did role-playing. (2.5) This
purpose of this role- purpose of this role-playing is (1.1) to notice what we are going to
actually speak unexpectedly. (0.8) Because even we thought "Oh: we have to be flexible,
we have to be considerate, we have to thoughtful." (0.7) We are not really sure what kind
of word are we going to speak, are we going to talk, are we going to use, (0.7) in that real
situation. (0.9) So we tried to be in a- (0.6) tried to be in a real (0.6) close situation (1.1)
as much as we could. (Class 1, March 15, 2001)

As part of their preparation for their fieldwork at a homeless shelter, Nana and

Shinpei simulated their conversation and interview with the shelter manager. In this

simulation, Nana acted as the shelter manager and Shinpei as a researcher. At one of their

meetings, the group decided to demonstrate this practice in their presentation so as to

make their talk more vivid and engaging.

Excerpt 6 . 3 7

1 Nana: (1.9) So, (1.1)1 was playing the (0.5) person who works at the shelter? As a shelter
manager? (0.5) Because we already made an appointment to - talk o- talk to- talk
with her, (0.6) so we were- (0.7) we were sure we are going to talk with her. (1.0)
And then (0.9) I'm going to play (0.6) so shelter manager? (0.5) And the person who
come to shelter (0.7) because (1.0) maybe just in case. (1.8) And then Shinpei is

251
 going to be a (0.5) researcher. (0.7) And Shinpei. Ha ((laughs)) So (1.9) that's what
we do- (0.9) that what we di:d? (0.5) in this (0.5) role-playing. (0.5) Okay. (1.2)
How- uh okay anyways the shelter manager is - named Carol.

2 ((several turns later))

3 Nana: ((in role as a shelter manager)) Hello. I'm Carol. Nice meeting [you?

4 Shin: ((in role as a researcher)) [Hello. I'm Shinpei. Nice to meet you too.

5 Nana: I'm really appreciate you guys came here to (0.6) see what we are (0.5) doing
(0.6) in this shelter. (1.1) It's really nice meeting you. (1.2) And umm (0.6) so
(0.6) how did you feel our (1.1) facility so far? (0.8)

6 Shin: Oh I didn't expected that (0.5) umm you have su- so big facility like (0.7) in-
internet, - or cafeteria or individual bedroom. (1.2) So I was very surprised.

7 Nana: ((makes faces))

8 Azu: Okay. Please pay attention the Carol's expressions? He looks - [like uncomfortable.

9 Nana [She -

10 Azu: ((softly) Ah - she. ((back in regular volume)) Why (0.9) umm - why she's be- she
looks like uncomfortable? Can you guess? ((looks around the room)) (2.7) Hitomi.

11 Hito: Hmm?

12 Azu: Can you [guess it?

13 Izzat: [Oh. ((laughs))

14 Azu: Why she looked umm uncomfortable, (0.6) of the - Shinpei's response?

15 Hito: Because - Shinpei didn't expect that it's- (1.9) Shinpei expected that is (0.6) like (0.6)
- not high technology or something?
16 Nana: Oh [yeah. (Class 1, March 15, 2001)

As a main speaker in this section, Azumi is responsible for helping the audience

understand their role-play. Not only does she direct the audience's attention to the

manager's facial expressions and describe her feelings, but she also asks the audience

why the manager might be offended. Hence, the students used a combination of two

involvement strategies, role-playing and question-asking. Many of the audience members

provided positive comments about this presentation. For example, one female student

252
commented: "I liked their demonstration of the simulation. It was easy to understand.

They had an awareness of the issue (complexity of conversing with informants in

appropriate manners)" (email interview, March 21, 2001).

6.5.5 Story-Reading

Although not commonly employed, story-reading was another strategy that many

members of the Keishin community perceived to be instrumental in engaging the

audience (see Morita, 2000, for use of this strategy by a graduate student). Two

international relations majors, Rie and Kyoko, chose to begin their Semester 2

presentation by reading a story from one of the recent issues of Time Magazine:

Excerpt 6.38

1 Rie: Today we'd like to talk about our presentation about - Japanese and Canadian
government (0.4) and organization's assistance to Sub-Saharan African countries'
(0.4) AIDS victims. (1.5) Before - starting with our presentation (0.4) we'd like you
to close your eyes - a:nd imagine (0.5)

2 Kyo: Close your eyes?

3 Class: ((some female students laugh. Close their eyes))

4 Kyo: Imagine your life is this way. (1.0) You are a housewife - with three kids. (0.4) One
of them has already - been tested positive with AIDS. At first, it's predicted to die
(0.6) t- too soon. (1.2) In his early childhood (0.4) your husband works three hundred
kilometers away - from your house and he only comes back twice a year. (0.6) When
he does, (0.5) he sleeps between you - and your children.. .At work (0.8) for every
three person there would be - one, only- on- there would be one - who is already
fatally ill. (0.9) You would talk about - a friend who admitted that - she have- she
was infected AIDS. (0.4) And then she was (torn) to death, (0.4) by her neighbors.
Your leisure time, during every Sunday - is occupied with friends' funerals. (1.1)
You go to bed - everyday - believing that an - adult your age will not live - past their
forties. (0.7) Sadly everyone (0.5) including your political leaders (0.8) act as if
nothing - is happening. (1.2) (These) are - true stories taken from TIME magazine,
(0.5) the February 12th 2001 issue. (1.1) Although it is Sub- Saharan countries'
AIDS problem, and it seems to have nothing to do with us, (0.4) it is almost- it is the
most fatal problem (0.5) for the human being - in this century. (1.0) We must
recognize the reality (0.6) that there's a place (for now) (0.5) where this
nightmare actually happens. (Class 3, March 23, 2001)

253
 Rie and Kyoko both commented that they decided to use this strategy to make

their topic more vivid and to engage their audience. Importantly, Rie is not just reading

the story here, but also interacting with the audience by performing speech acts. After

announcing the title of their presentation, Rie requests the audience to close their eyes in

Line 1 by using the declarative form. Kyoko then realizes the same meaning by using the

imperative form instead. Then in Line 4, Rie directs the audience to suppose that she is

telling a story about their life by saying "Imagine your life is this way." Here, the word

"this" has a cataphoric relationship to the upcoming story taken from Time Magazine. As

we have seen in Chapter 3, cataphora is one of the proactive resources used to create

contingency (van Lier, 1998a). The use of this resource in conjunction with the speech

act seems to have helped Rie to set up expectations for what is to come next (van Lier,

1996). After reading the story depicting the seriousness of the AIDS problem, Rie makes

her (or her group's) point that "we must recognize the reality that there's a place where

this nightmare happens." By using the first person plural pronoun coupled with the modal

auxiliary verb "must," the speaker demands the audience's attention to the problem. After

the presentation, Rie and Kyoko said that they wanted to raise their classmate's

awareness about the serious issue. In sum, many presenters attempted to engage their

audience by using a variety of strategies and carrying out a number of interpersonal

actions.

6.6 Managing Presentation Discourse

Many Keishin students mentioned that a "good" presentation is easy to follow,

and that to make their presentation audience-friendly, they used a variety of strategies. In

this section, we will examine some of the ways in which Keishin students managed and

254
organized their presentation discourse. In other words, the focus is the textual aspects of

the student presentations.

6.6.1 Outlining the Presentation

At the beginning of their presentations, some groups chose to give a verbal and/or

visual outline for their talk. For example, Sakura's Semester 1 group provided a written

outline on the blackboard as follows:

o Introduction

o Volunteer assist teacher's work

o Parent joins the activity

o How to play

o Conclusion (Class 2, November 9, 2000)

Interestingly, none of the group members referred to this outline at all in their

presentation. Sakura said at her interview that her group had decided that it would be self-

explanatory, but she thought that they should have after observing her classmates'

presentations that followed. Since they were the second group to present in the class, they

had observed only one presentation.

In Semester 2, many groups gave a verbal outline of their talk showing a written

version on the OHP. In Excerpt 6.39, Sakura is providing a verbal outline of the Semester

2 presentation she made with two of her classmates:

Excerpt 6.39

Saku: I'll (0.5) show you about (0.5) outline of our - presentation. First is (0.8) introduction
and its content - abstract and methods of our research? And second is importance of EL-
ESL learning, ((clears her throat)) And this - part have statistics and (0.5) histories about
immigrants, ((clears her throat)) And third is - general ideal learning style for ESL
learning. (1.0) And - forth (0.7) is about case study and (1.2) these ((clears her throat))
part have- has (1.1) umm in- introduc- introduce (2.0) Smith Secondary School and -
questions to teachers and students. And the last part is (1.1) our plan in the future.
(Class 3, March 16, 2001)

255
 As the boldface shows, the speaker is using linking words (i.e., first, second, third,

forth, and last), thus constructing a temporal sequence. Likewise, Mai, one of Yoshino's

partners for the Semester 1 presentation, is outlining the organization of their entire

presentation:

Excerpt 6.40

Mai: Okay. (0.6) I'm- (0.7) from now, I'm gonna show you the outline of our presentation.
(0.4) First -1 wanna talk about what is a Halloween? Uh what was our volunteer work?
Next Yoshino'11 explain what is a Canadian Dream Society's schedule, volunteer
opportunities. It means what kind of work did they have? (0.4) After that - I'm gonna
look at my work, and also Kenji's work? (0.4) Fina- uh and there- after that I'm gonna -
uh show you our feelings through the experience, - and finally I'm talk about the- our
conclusion. (0.7) (Class 2, November 16, 2000)

Like Sakura, the speaker is using linking words (i.e., first, next, after that, finally);

however, this outline is more detailed in that it provides information as to who is

responsible for which part of the presentation. The linking words in Excerpt 6.40 are

employed as nouns while those in Excerpt 6.39 are employed as adverbs. Tomo and

Koyuki's Semester 1 group gave their audience a written outline of their talk as an

advance organizer.

Excerpt 6.41

Tomo: Uh: (1.2) what we did in the volunteer all- all different <Izzat: Hmm.> on each o- each
other so (1.3) in part of our presentation - we'll give uh (1.0) we'll- each one of us will
talk about - our experience separately. (0.8) So our presentation will be a little bit -
complicated. (0.5) So we made an (0.7) outline, like this one? ((shows the handout)) (0.6)
So please keep it? (0.7) And that will (0.5) follow - that will help you follow our
presentation easily, ((distributes the handouts)) (Class 3, November 23, 2000)

According to Heino, Tervonen, and Tommola (2002), these kinds of

"announcements of standard reporting structure presumably allow listeners to activate an

organizational frame that makes it easier to follow the presentation" (p. 131). My

interviews and observations suggest that this was what the Keishin student-both

256
presenters and audience members-had in their minds. It is important to note that more

groups used this type of metadiscourse in Semester 2 than in Semester 1.

Moreover, many students made use of more micro-level metadiscourse to

organize their presentation. For example, each time that turning taking took place, Otome

and her partner Noriko announced what they would talk about, signifying movement in

points in their speech. Excerpt 6.42 is a list of the first utterance of each speaker's turn.

Excerpt 6.42

3 Nori: And we'd like to talk about our volunteer work at travel agency.

8 Nori: Okay. Uh we'll start. (0.5) I'd like to talk about our company.

9 Otom: Next -1 will talk about what we did at [name of the travel agency]. We did - three

main things.

10 Nori: Next I'd like to talk about our research subject and - intentions.

11 Otom: Next I will summarize the result of Japanese speakers' survey.

12 Nori: Okay. And I'd like to discuss and make a conclusion, about our research.
13 Otom: Next - we will suggest - how they can remove this barriers at [name of the travel
agency], and what it will take for NTA office worker to be a good intercultural
communicators?
15 Otom: And next (1.5) I: next, ((laughs)) (1.8) we will talk about umm how our volunteer
experience is related to our future career. (Class 1, November 23, 2000)

These transitions were used to switch roles between the presenters and to prepare

the audience for what comes next.

6.6.2 Defining the Scope of the Presentation

Some groups defined the scope of their speech. Excerpt 6.43 is one example. As

reported in Chapter 5, Tomo obtained a volunteer position at a fair trade coffee business

after failing several job interviews. However, he decided to focus on his experience at

one of the interviews for the group presentation.

257
Excerpt 6.43

Tomo: I went to uh three places - tofindmy position. (1.2) Just like Yuji I had a difficulty to
find my position (0.7) too. (1.0) But I have no time today - so - I focus on the most
impor- impressive place I went? (Class 3, November 23, 2000)

This kind of metadiscourse seemed to help guide the audience's attention while giving

them an idea about the scope of the presenter's work.

6.6.3 Referring to Previous Parts

Some students occasionally referred to previous parts of their presentations. In

Excerpt 6.44, Sakura makes a reference to what her partner Eiko has said.

Excerpt 6.44

Saku: Umm. (1.3) As Eiko said, (1.2) in our swimming class, there are (2.0) usually there are
four or five children and (0.6) one teacher? (1.2) And three or four volunteers? (0.7) But
if parent is available for swimming class, - they can take their child into pool, instead of
volunteer? (1.8) Umm. It was somewhat surprise for me - because (1.2) umm I've never
(0.5) thought parent join in class as same (1.1) as us? (Class 2, November 9, 2000)

Likewise, Excerpt 6.45 shows how Hiroki referred to Kiku's previous utterance:

Excerpt 6.45

Hiro: So - first, - a:s Kikujiro uh explained before, (0.8) First Nations people didn't know the
drugs or drinks but uh (0.8) European - came. (Class 3, March 16, 2001).

According to Bruning, Schraw, and Ronning (1998), experienced writers

"occasionally preface paragraphs with sentences that tie the upcoming content back to the

things discussed on previous pages" (p. 307). Similarly, some Keishin students prefaced

their speech with utterances that tie the upcoming utterance to previously mentioned

ideas. By using these cohesive ties (Halliday & Hasan, 1976), the presenters were able to

connect old and new information and create the texture of their presentations.

6.6.4 Referring to Previous Presentations and Events

A few groups referred to previous presentations in their presentations. The

following example was taken from the Semester 1 presentation given by Yuka, Kota, and

258
Shoko, who volunteered in the same Japanese language class as Kiku, Nana, and Shinya.

Excerpt 6.46

1 Yuka: We'd like to talk about experiences. (4.3) First, umm (0.8) I and Shoko are
volunteering (2.2) and we go- we: (1.2) we go to - a Japanese class 201 class. And
Kota goes Japanese four hundred?
2 Kota: Four- Four hundred. Yes.

3 Yuka: Four hundred and ten. So we: (0.8) yeah we are same class but Kota is different. So
first, I'd like to talk about Japanese 201. (1.1) Uh: in this class (1.4) I think you
already (0.7) know because Kiku or Nana and Shinya mentioned about the
classes 201.

4 Kiku: Yeah. The same.

5 Yuka: Right? And so maybe I-1 don't need to explain.

6 Kiku: Ah sorry about that.

7 Yuka: ((smiling)) That's okay.

8 Izzat: ((laughs)) Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

9 Ss: ((some laugh too))

10 Yuka: Umm (1.1) in short, (0.9) yeah it's conversation class. (0.9) And uh (1.4) we have
four or five stu- WPU students, and uh (0.6) we talk about (0.9) our (2.4) our (0.7)
family or hobby or (0.9) my introduction (0.7) kind of introduction. (1.1) And (0.8)
introduce ourselves (0.9) and (4.6) yes and Japanese culture and so on. (Class 3,
November 16, 2000)

In Line 3, Yuka states that the audience may be familiar with the context in which

they did their volunteer work as Kiku's group has talked about it earlier on the same day.

Kiku responds to this statement in Line 4, saying that they went to the same class. In Line

5, Yuka states that maybe it is not necessary for her to explain their volunteer work. What

Yuka did here was to draw an intertextual link between Kiku's group's presentation and

her own. Interestingly, Kiku then responds to Yuka's utterance by apologizing half

humorously, half seriously. This seems to reflect the students' belief about the oral

presentation task that fresh information should be presented to engage an audience. As

259
we have seen earlier, all of the three presenting groups for the day were to report on their

experience as conversation partners in Japanese classes at WPU, and they all wanted to

be the first group to present about this volunteer work. This was because they were afraid

that if they were the second or third group to present, their content would not be "new"

any more, and the audience might lose their interests. In Line 10, Yuka prefaces her

speech with the phrase "in short," indicating that she will not spend too much time

describing their volunteer work. In other words, Yuka builds on Kiku's group's

presentation.

In Excerpt 6.47, Haruka first introduces her volunteer opportunity at a conference,

which involved a session on re-entry culture shock. She then refers back to the class

meeting where one student from the previous group talked about her re-entry culture

shock that she experienced at Keishin University after her year-long studies at WPU. As

all the class members attended this meeting, all of the audience members might have

known exactly what Haruka was referring to.

Excerpt 6.47

Haru: And fortunately I was invited to volunteer at EFG conference, umm EFG conference is a
conference for -association of international educators. (0.5) Umm they had (various)
sessions for the (x)? (0.5) Umm it was so great - because- it is actually a place to one of
cross-cultural communication, just like in this class? (0.6) So (0.8) I had a - very great
opportunity to (0.8) learn about it. Actually, there was a session about re-entry culture
shock, -1 think you remember that - one of the Keishin 9 students come to our class,
to talk about her experience about re-entry culture shock. And I-1 had (0.7) another
chance to think about it. So it is very nice to (0.6) nice to me. (0.6) (Class 2, November
23, 2000)

Excerpt 6.48 illustrates how Kiku made a reference to a previous event in his

Semester 1 presentation. Prior to this excerpt, Kiku mentioned the importance of not

speaking Japanese in class time, reflecting on his experience working with two WPU

students in their Japanese class. He reported having felt left out when these students, both

260
of whom were from Hong Kong, started to speak Chinese despite the fact that he was the

only non-Chinese speaker. In the excerpt, Kiku refers to a previous event in which the

instructor of another course started to speak French in her teaching, knowing that few

students would understand her speech.

Excerpt 6.48

1 Kiku: And uh: I know some of the- uh: - some of the students in this classroom are
taking a Ruth's class, - right? Ruth's classes?

2 Ss: Mm-hmm. ((nodding))

3 Kiku: And then - remember? She spoke uh French (1.0) uh: in uh some other classes
(0.7) coz we were speaking Japanese at the uh: beginning of each class,

4 Izzat: [((laughs))

5 Kiku: [and then she was uh getting angry. And- and then she suddenly spoke French (1.2)
and then she decided to speak French and then - we were all upset maybe. (0.6) At
least some of them. (1.0) So (1.0) what I want to say is that in order to (1.3)
respect, (0.8) or something (xx) (0.9) so - we have to uh: (1.1) not to speak -
Japanese. (Class 3, November 16, 2000)

As many students' nods in Line 2 suggest, this event was shared by many of the

audience members. In fact, about half of Kiku's classmates were taking the course. What

the above excerpts illustrate then is the students' use of the commonly or semi-commonly

shared experience as a resource for their presentation. For example, Haruka invoked her

senior's talk to make it easier for the audience to understand the nature of the learning

opportunity that she had at the international conference. Kiku used the "French lesson" as

"common knowledge" (Edwards & Mercer, 1987; Mercer, 2000) to make their group's

argument that they should not speak Japanese in class time to respect their teachers who

did not speak the language (Line 5). As we will see later, this type of intertextual link was

often made by Izzat in her classroom talk. Excerpt 6.49 shows Izzat's evaluation of

Kiku's act:

261
Excerpt 6.49

Izzat: I'm really-1 have been really impressed with all of you that - you have been able to
make meaning out of your experience. (05) Again I said in the previous class it's very
easy to- to go somewhere (0.6) and do something (0.6) or just look around and uh not
being able to make meaning out of it. (0.7) For instance, I'm- I'm really impressed
because you - seem to be doing what a researcher usually does. Yes, you go do things
and you find out "So what does this mean to me. What does this mean to my class. What
does this mean to my country. What am I learning from this experience." And that
making meaning part is the most difficult part. And you've been able to do that. And uh
also - to be able to connect that - with uh your experience and relating it to other
people - such as "if this is how it makes me feel when I hear people speaking Chinese in
(x) - in my presence, (0.6) imagine how Ruth must have felt when we all started to speak
in Japanese. (0.7) Perhaps yeah even just remembering that's why Ruth started to speak
in French (0.6) because she was frustrated that everybody else was speaking Japanese.
(0.6) Okay? And tha- that is very good that you could - make meaning. You could
relate to things around you. (0.6) And that's what - umm your experience is supposed
to be. (0.8) Very good. (Class 3, November 16, 2000)

As this feedback suggests, relating insights from the fieldwork to other experiences was a

valued practice of making intertextual connections in this classroom community.

6.7 Audience Contributions to the T a s k Performance

As we saw in Chapter 2, some previous studies have shown that seemingly

monological activities like oral presentations are co-constructed by the presenter(s) and

audience members (e.g., Duff, 1995; Morita, 2000). Audience contribution was a major

part of the student presentations examined in the present study as well.

6.7.1 Teacher Contributions

Izzat conceived of the oral presentations not only as opportunities for her students

to demonstrate what they have already learned, but also as occasions for their further

meaning making and learning. As such, she played a number of roles both during and

after the students' task performance in addition to her role as an evaluator. These

included negotiating meaning, providing appropriate language and additional

explanations, and adding humor.

262
6.7.1.1 N e g o t i a t i n g M e a n i n g

During her students' presentations, Izzat often asked the presenters questions to

clarify their meaning. In Excerpt 6.50, Izzat paraphrases Shun's question and makes a

confirmation check (see Chaudron, 1986) to see if her understanding of his meaning is

right.

Excerpt 6.50

1 Shun: There are - good influence, - or - there are - bad influence. (0.8) But important point -
is (0.6) how does that - event work to you. And your mind. (2.8) Can you
understand? How does - that event work to you. (1.0) To your-

2 Izzat: Or how can you make use of that negative event (0.4) to your benefit. Is that
what it means? (0.4) How can you make use of your negative experience -

3 Shun: [Yes.

4 Izzat: to turn things into positive situations. =

5 Shun: = Yes. Exactly, ((smiles)) (Class 3, November 23, 2000)

In the Excerpt 6.51, Rei is reporting what she found while she was working as a

volunteer at a daycare center.

Excerpt 6.51

1 Rei: Other piece, (0.5) and (0.6) be- maybe because it's uh so: so unique (0.7) so and they
(0.5) maybe they do - because and (0.9) they can't- they can't make such a unique
piece, (0.5) so [they
2 Izzat: [Children cannot make uh unique piece in Japan but -

3 Rei: Ah no-no-no-no-no-no-no-no. - I'm sorry. Umm (0.5) some children try to: uh

no-no. Some children (0.5) criticize - others' piece, - [cause

4 Izzat: [if it's

5 Rei: Eel [What?]

6 Izzat: If it's unique?

7 Rei: Ah yeah. Yeah.

8 Izzat: I see. Yes. That's what I thought. (Class 2, November 9, 2000)

263
 In Line 2, Izzat attempts to paraphrase what Rei has just said. Rei then provides

negative feedback (Ellis, 1997) in Line 3, suggesting that there is a gap between her

intention and her teacher's understanding. In the same line, she apologizes for causing the

misunderstanding and continues to express the intended meaning. In Line 6, Izzat

produced a subordinate clause to complete Rei's utterance in Line 3. Because of its rising

intonation, this utterance serves as a confirmation check, thus inviting Rei to respond.

Then, Rei provides positive feedback in Line 7 and Izzat shows understanding in Line 8,

thus reaching an agreement.

6.7.1.2 Providing Appropriate Language

Izzat sometimes provided appropriate language for the presenters, fn Excerpt

6.52, Shun says that since he and Taka have not finished analyzing data yet, he will

report on their "intermediate research." Hearing this, Izzat first gives a tentative

confirmation ("yeah intermediate"), but soon presents an alternative ("in progress

research") in Line 2.

Excerpt 6.52

1 Shun: We couldn't - umm finish our [s'naebsisiizjand compared. (0.8) Compare. So (6.7)
I'll talk about from - intermediate research. (1.3) This means is - not finished - mm
(1.4) yet. Ha-ha-ha.((laughs))
2 Izzat: ((softly)) In - umm (0.5) yeah intermediate. OR you can say in progress research.

3 Taka: In progress. Yes.

4 Izzat: ((to Shun)) In progress?

5 Shun: In progress. [Yes.

6 Izzat: [Yeah. Yeah. (Class 3, November 23, 2000)

264
 The following is an excerpt from the Semester 1 presentation that Ichiro made

with Taichi. Ichiro lists Caucasians along with different ethnic groups such as Chinese

and French.

Excerpt 6.53: Presentation

Ichi: uh Canada is a multinational- multicultural - country. So there are many kinds of people
uh who have different cultures - from others. - So: for example uh: there are Caucasians,
uh Japanese, Chinese, uh Indian, uh First Nations, French, and so on. (Class 1, November
9, 2000)

The following exchange (Excerpt 6.54) took place during the question and answer time.

Izzat tells Ichiro that the term Caucasian is a race category, thus correcting his

classification of people.

Excerpt 6.54: Teacher Feedback

1 Izzat: Uh there was one - uh (x) when you talked about umm these examples about different
ethnic groups in- in Canada - you said Caucasians, English, French, Indians, and
Japanese [for example.

2 Ichi: [Uh:

3 Izzat: Just for your future reference - Caucasians is uh: [supposedly a name for a -

4 Ichi: [Yeah. Right.

5 Izzat: a different - race supposedly.

6 Ichi: Yes. It's right.

7 Izzat: And that can include in a way in East Indians,

8 Ichi: Yeah.

9 Izzat: French, English, and perhaps some people even from China. Some people in China
consider themselves as Caucasians. Okay? But uh French and English uh in a way
- they are not names of- of race. [They're names

10 Ichi: [Mmm.
11 Izzat: [of different -

12 Ichi: [Yeah. Yeah.

13 Izzat: nations =

265
14 Ichi: = Nation. Yeah.

15 Izzat: Yeah. Okay?

16 Ichi: Okay. Yeah. (Class 1, November 9, 2000)

6.7.1.3 Providing Additional Information and Explanation

Another role that Izzat played during her students' presentations was that of a

provider of additional information and explanation. In the following excerpt, Taka, who

has participated in a psychology research project with his classmate Shun, is giving an

example to explain what informed consent means:

Excerpt 6.55

1 Taka: The informed consent is (0.7) for example, (1.4) I am a doctor. (0.5) Doctor, and - he
is patient, -
2 ((Izzat laughs))

3 Taka: And ((coughs)) he comes to my hospital, and I'll give (0.5) the medicine for you.
(0.4) But - before give the medicine, -1 explain - about this medicine - effect or
ingredients, or something, (0.5) and after explaining about this medicine, and ((to
Shun)) do you agree? [This medicine?

4 Shun: [Yes. Yes.

5 Taka: after experience, uh after- after (0.4) experience about this medicine and I'll give
you. (1.5) This is informed consent.

6 ((Izzat and some students laugh))

7 Taka: Do you understand? (0.6) Understand?

8 Izzat: Yeah. That's a very good explanation. Remember what Masaki did for his
research? ((most students nod)) Yeah. Informed consent - yeah. You inform, you
tell people what you are - asking them to consent first - and then ask them to
agree or disagree. Okay? That's very good. Informed consent. Yeah. (Class 3,
November 23, 2000)

In Line 7, Taka asks the audience if they have understood the term consent form.

Prompted by this comprehension check, Izzat takes a turn and provides positive feedback

to Taka and an appraisal of his explanation. Interestingly, she then refers back to what the

266
researcher did for the present study, which result in nods of comprehension from most of

the audience members. Finally, the teacher explains what the term means. Here, it is

important to note that Izzat often referred to previous texts and contexts in her

explanations, using the word "remember." In other words, she drew upon what seemed to

be the "common knowledge" of the classroom community in her explanations.

Excerpt 6.56 was taken from the first few minutes of Ichiro's speech in the

Semester 1 presentation that he gave with Taichi. In Line 1, Ichiro explains why he and

Taichi could not do their volunteer work and what they did instead for the assignment. In

Line 2, Izzat follows up on Ichiro's account, giving more details about their activities.

Excerpt 6.56

1 Ichi: So: - uh: actually I applied to uh United Nations - but uh so far we haven't received
uh any reply from them. Therefore - uh we couldn't find a place to uh: - volunteer. So
Izzat told umm us to: uh go some events relating to the culture. -

2 Izzat: So in a way they did observational studies. They went to some events, cultural
events? And uh: listened to lectures and saw what happened and then now they
are trying to make sense of what they found (021) and then going to tell us.
Okay? (Class 1, November 9, 2000)

Excerpt 6.57 was taken from Tomo, Koyuki, and Yuji's Semester 1 presentation.

Having reported on his struggle of job-hunting, Yuji states in Line 1 that their group

realized how difficult it is for them as international students to find a volunteer job by

themselves. He goes on to say that their classmates might not have had difficulty finding

their jobs because Sally, the administrative coordinator, helped them. Recall that while

most students chose a volunteer job from several options that the coordinator had

prepared for them, both Tomo and Yuji looked for jobs on their own after failing their

interviews for one of the job options provided by her.

267
Excerpt 6.57

1 Yuji: Yeah. Uh first one, is uh how difficult- how difficult it is to get a volunteer position
by ourselves. Umm maybe- maybe in case of everyone, umm Sally's uh Sally'd look-
look- looked for your volunteer? And I guess uh it- it was uh it was not difficult to
find (0.5) uh your volunteer? But uh uh: we- we found uh our volunteer, by
ourselves. (0.5) Umm it was- it was difficult, (0.5) u:mm I-1- we didn't know that
where- where we:- where we: can- where we can find uh (0.5) information, - of
volunteer, (0.7) So it was difficult. (0.8)

2 Izzat: Umm while you're on this topic umm let me say that it's difficult even for Sally - to
find umm people? Like you said that they don't call you back. <Yuji: Mm> I mean
call anybody. It doesn't matter it's Sally calling or it was you calling. <Yuji: Umm>
And she has to call again and again and uh she- and she did excellent job and I-1
thanked her. I gave her some flowers to say thank you. Because she worked for us
<Yuji: Huh-hmm> for the class. <Yuji: Mm> So- so it really is a difficult job to find
a place for people...

3 Tomo: Okay. Uh anyway (0.5) uh: (0.6) after we went to uh St. Paul's Hospital, <Izzat:
Hmm> we started uh looking for our next volunteer position - by ourselves. (Class 3,
November 23, 2000)

In Line 2, Izzat makes comments on what Yuji has just said. While understanding

Yuji's point, she tells the class that finding volunteer jobs for the Keishin students was a

very difficult task for Sally, too, and later suggests that they send a card to show their

appreciation for the hard work that the coordinator did for them behind the scenes.

The group's plan was that immediately after finishing his part, Yuji was going to

hand over the floor to Tomo by announcing what the next speaker would discuss (see

Excerpt 6.22 for an example). However, because of the unexpected contribution from the

instructor, Yuji was not able to perform this handover. In Line 3, Tomo starts to speak by

saying "Okay" followed by "anyway." At the playback session, Tomo commented that

this speech sounded "rude," but he did not know how to respond to the teacher's

unexpected comments because he was busy remembering what to say next. Koyuki also

reported a similar problem that she had in her Semester 1 presentation.

268
 Furthermore, Izzat sometimes reminded her students of presentations given

previously or told them about presentation given in other classes. Excerpt 6.58 is part of

the answer and question time after Otome and Ringo's Semester 2 presentation on the

socialization in a First Nations community. The teacher tells the class about Kiku and

Hiro's presentation, which was given in a different class.

Excerpt 6.58

Izzat: Kikujiro and Hiroki did uh their presentation -their research on First Nations people also.
And they talked about how - uh: they were language socialized into uh the mainstream
Canadian culture. (Class 1, March 29, 2001)

The teacher's intent here was to help the class better understand the issue at hand

by providing an additional example. However, there seems to have been at least one other

consequence of the teacher's act. Since the Keishin group is a relatively small and close-

knit community, well networked electronically, news spread quickly across classes and

dorms. In fact, Otome and Ringo later told Kiku that Izzat had told them about their

presentation. Kiku commented that he was glad to hear that the teacher had referred to

their work. Thus, one consequence was that Izzat's act seems to have helped the students

see themselves as legitimate contributors to the teaching and learning process of the class

(O'Connor & Michaels, 1996).

6.7.1.4 Adding Humor

Adding humor seems to have been another important role that teacher played in

students' presentations. In Excerpt 6.59, Otome asks the audience in Line 2 to be patient

since they are the final presenters of the class. Izzat responds to this request with the

comment, "So you'd better do the best job." The humorous nature of this utterance is

evidenced by Izzat's tone of voice and the audience's laughter (see Eggins & Slade,

1997, for a relevant discussion).

269
Excerpt 6.59

1 Nori: And we'd like to talk about our volunteer work at travel agency.

2 Otom: We are last pre- the last presenters so please [be patient.

3 Izzat: [So you'd better do the best job!

4 Ss: ((laugh)) (Class 1, November 23, 2000)

In Excerpt 6.60, Ichiro first tells the audience that he and his partner will not be

able to report on their volunteer experience since they did not have a chance to work at

the United Nations-related office to which they had applied.

Excerpt 6.60

1 Ichi: Uh today we are supposed to uh talk about our volunteering ex- experience. However

we can't uh:: talk about it - because we didn't have any volunteering in this term. So:

2 Ss: ((laugh))

3 Ichi: So - yes. Unfortunately not. -

4 Izzat: So it's uh you're going to talk about not having volunteering to do.

5 Ichi: Uh: [((laughs))

6 Ss: [((laugh)) (Class 1, November 9, 2000)

In Line 4, Izzat paraphrases Ichiro's utterance, emphasizing the negative marker "not."

This elicits laughter from the presenter as well as from some members of the audience.

Several students commented that they appreciate Izzat's humor and attentiveness during

their presentations. Hence, the teacher seemed to have contributed to the construction of

friendly and relaxed atmospheres for the student presentations, which might have been a

major source of anxiety for many of her students.

6.7.1.5 Re-explaining the Purpose of the Task

As reported in Chapter 4, strongly believing that teachers are accountable for their

students' understanding and performance of tasks, Izzat explained the purposes and

270
values of the oral presentation tasks on many occasions in all of her classes. As the

following excerpts show, she continued to do this after her students started their

presentations.

Excerpt 6.61

Izzat: I hope that you are learning from all the presentations. The point of the presentation is
that - because - many people djd many things - if everybody tell us what they did - we
can learn much much more - than otherwise. Okay? We- we can't learn everything and
do everything by ourselves. But when other people tell us this is what I did - and this is
what I learned - that - works or doesn't work. We should learn from their experience.
(Class 3, November 23, 2000)

The above explanation (Excerpt 6.61) was given to the class on the final day of the

Semester 1 presentations whereas the explanation below (Excerpt 6.62) was given on the

first day of the Semester 2 presentations.

Excerpt 6.62

Izzat: One thing I hope you do - is that uh you realize the importance of how much you are
going to learn, as a result of - this presentation? What I mean is that if I told you
something or said in front of the classroom, I could have taught you only one thing, about
one - area? For instance, homeless in Maple Tree City [the topic of the presentation just
seen]. But now we're going to do -fivesix presentations - you're going to learn about six
seven - perhaps even ten - new different things - as a result of people's presentations and
research. Okay? I hope you - understand that - the value of this kind of work. (Class 1,
March 15,2001)

6.7.2 Students' Contributions to the Task Performance

As reported earlier, audience members were often asked questions by the

presenters. However, their role was not confined to answering the presenter's questions.

As the following examples show, some students asked questions of the presenters during

the question and answer time.

Excerpt 6.63

1 Misa: Do you have any question about our (0.6) presentation? (4.0)

2 Kumi: Actually you worked- at travel agency. Do you think do you want to work there
after you go back to Japan, (0.4) after you did the (0.7) job hunting?

271
3 ((several turns later))

4 Misa: Umm (1.8) yeah. Actually I want to: (0.9) do: - the works related to the travel. (1.0)
Yeah. So (0.6) I think (1.6) it is (1.1) good opportunity (0.9) for me. (Class 2,
November 9, 2000)

In Excerpt 6.63, Misa first opens the floor for discussion. In Line 2, Kumi asks whether

Misa and Shinpei want to pursue their careers as travel agents. Misa then answers that she

wants to because she is interested in traveling and that it was a good opportunity for her.

Excerpt 6.64

1 Ichi: Do you have uh any questions? ((Mei raises her hand)) Yes.

2 Mei: I'm going to ask uh (0.6) what do you think about the (0.9) identity as a
Japanese (0.6) not general thinking - but your opinion or thinking.

3 Ichi: Uh I see. Uh so: (2.0) uh: (0.8) you know so: (1.1) I think uh (1.4) you have to think
about more what is (0.5) Japanese (identity). Uh (1.3) cause you know (0.9) so -1
think so: (0.7) maybe - after I come here to Canada (0.5) many people (0.7) think
(0.6) uh (1.2) who- who they are (0.5) so I'm a Japanese so what is a difference
between Japanese culture and Canadian culture. Uh -

4 Mei: If you have a certain (0.7) identity of Japanese?

5 Ichi: Oh Yeah. It's okay I think. Yeah. It's-

6 Mei: No. What-what do you think-

7 Ichi: Yes? (1.7)

8 Mei: What's the identity of (0.6) of your Japanese- as a Japanese?

9 Ichi: Uh: so (0.5) ((clears his throat)) (1.1) it's very complicated.

10 Class: ((laughs))

11 Ichi: Yeah. It's-1 think it's very good question (0.4) but (0.9) uh to be honest I
can't answer (1.2) exactly. (1.7) Yeah so (2.5) Yeah. I know (1.1) in a way I
belong to Japanese culture but (1.1) how (2.5) how Japanese - uh I am (0.5)
I'm not sure. (0.6) [So -

12 Mei: [So (1.7) for example (1.3) as a Japanese, (0.8) do you have any (0.6) pride- pride
of (0.8) (being x)

13 Ichi: Uh yeah. (Class 1, November 9, 2000)

272
 Similarly, in Excerpt 6.64, Ichiro first opens the floor for discussion. In Line 2,

Mei, one of the most active members of the class, asks him what he thinks of being

Japanese, which resulted in a series of negotiation that lasted several minutes. Excerpt

6.64 took place during thefirstfew minutes of this extended talk. For example, in Line 4,

Mei asks Ichiro if he has a certain Japanese identity. Ichiro's answer in Line 5 does not

seem to satisfy Mei, as indicated by her negative feedback "No" in Line 6. Having found

that her question was not understood, Mei then asks Ichiro what kind of Japanese identity

he has. In Lines 9 and 11, Ichiro answers that although he is a member of the Japanese

culture, he is not sure how Japanese he is. Mei then asks if he is proud of being Japanese,

to which Ichiro answers "Yeah."

The above excerpts show that student-audience members contributed to their

peers' presentations especially during the response time. Since students' presentation

discourse was mostly planned (see Chapter 5), the response period after the presentation

seemed to have provided them with opportunities to engage in unplanned conversations

about the presented materials. However, not all students participated as actively (or

overtly) as Kumi and Mei. In Semester 1, only a few students asked the presenters

questions or gave them comments. For example, at her interview, Sakura said:

It's difficult to ask questions about others' presentations because you need not only to
understand content you're not familiar with, but also to think quickly what to ask and
formulate sentences in English, (original in Japanese, interview, December 3, 2000)

Students' participation was not limited to overt questioning and commenting (see

Erickson, 1996; Kramsch, 2002; Liu, 2001; Morita, 2002; Pon, Goldstein, & Schecter,

2003; Saville-Troike, 1988; van Lier, 1988, for relevant discussions). According to van

Lier (1988), "attention, and indeed participation, need not necessarily be overt at all

times. Participation may consist in 'eavesdropping,' thinking about what is going on,

273
internal repetition, etc." (p. 93). Other forms of participation observed by the researcher

and/or reported by students in the present study included laughing, smiling, taking notes,

looking up words in a dictionary, and responding to the speaker in mind. Importantly,

several students including Koyuki, Otome, Ringo, Sakura, Shinpei, and Yoshino, said

after their Semester 1 presentations that their audience's nodding, smiling, and

backchannelling greatly helped reduce their anxiety and made them feel more confident

about themselves and that they realized the importance of audience members using non-

verbal cues to signal their attentiveness and support for the presenter(s). Interestingly,

Koyuki, Otome, and Ringo said that the researcher's presence also helped them feel more

relaxed as he was familiar with their task performance.

Although a few students asked the presenters questions or gave them comments,

most students commented about their classmates' task performances at their interviews or

during causal conversations. For example, some said that they admired Mei's

participation reported above for being "active." One of them said that she thought that

"That's how I should participate in class." In contrast, there were some others who were

critical of Mei's questioning, having perceived it to be "one-way" and "aggressive." One

student said that "Her questioning was not something which I wanted to imitate" (original

in Japanese, interview, December 3, 2000). Thus, the question and answer time seemed to

have provided non-presenting students with opportunities to observe each other's

participation and consider what it meant to be a good audience member.

6.8 Summary of the Chapter

In this chapter, we have examined the actual performance of Keishin students'

oral presentations. As a research report, the oral presentation was an opportunity for the

274
presenters to critically reflect on their fieldwork. Major sub-activities included explaining

the rationale for the study, displaying newly gained information and knowledge,

reporting participants' voices, and connecting theory to practice. In these processes,

students made various efforts to self-regulate their performance, including use of notes,

self-repetition, and use of private speech. For example, Kiku, Nana, and Shinya used

group notes that contained self-addressed utterances. To facilitate his own L2 production,

Shinpei reorganized his Japanese utterances in an order that corresponded roughly with

English word order.

In addition, many students collaborated with their peers during their presentations.

One type of peer collaboration had to do with turn taking. The most commonly used

pattern was that before finishing his or her turn, the current speaker would announce who

would talk next about what, and then the new speaker would thank the previous speaker

for this introduction. Some groups used LI backstage talk during their presentations. For

instance, Kiku used this talk to covertly give his partners advice about their performance.

Some students helped their partners' utterance production when signs of difficulties were

exhibited.

Another important aspect of the presentation was interpersonal action. Given the

real-time, face-to-face nature of the activity, many groups had audience involvement as a

main goal. To this end, they performed a number of speech acts and used a variety of

strategies, which included use of small talk, use of questions directed at the audience,

repetition to emphasize important points, role-playing and demonstration, and story-

telling.

275
 A third salient aspect had to do with to the organization and management of

presentation discourse. Many groups used metadiscourse at both macro- and micro-levels

to direct their audience's attention. For one thing, many groups gave a verbal and/or

written outline of their presentations at the beginning of their talk. Moreover, many

students referred to previous parts of their groups' presentations and previous classroom

events. In Semester 1, one group even referred to a previous presentation on a similar

topic. In other words, presenters drew connections between texts and events and between

the familiar and the new (van Lier, 1996), which seemed to have helped guide their

audience's attention.

Finally, we examined audience contributions to students' task performance. As a

major socializing agent, the instructor played a variety of roles both during and after the

presentations. These included a negotiator of meaning, a provider of appropriate language

and additional explanations, an explainer of task purpose, and a source of humor.

Student-members of the audience also contributed to the task performance. Some

members asked the presenters questions and gave them comments while others

participated less overtly by smiling, laughing, looking up unknown words in their

dictionaries, and responding to the presenters in their minds. Furthermore, students'

questions seemed to have served as models for their peers in learning how to and how not

to respond to classmates' presentations. To sum up, students' oral presentations were not

only products of group project work, but also jointly constructed processes of negotiation

and meaning making.

276
 Chapter 7

STUDENTS' LEARNING ACROSS TASKS AND CONTEXTS

7.0 Introduction

Chapter 5 examined learning opportunities that the four original students and their

partners jointly constructed as they collaborated to accomplish their Semester 1

presentation tasks. In other words, the chapter looked at students' learning experiences

within one particular task, focusing on their out-of-class group work. Chapter 6 mostly

examined students' public performances of the Semester 1 and 2 presentations. Although

it looked at various features of the two presentations, the chapter did not trace learning

pathways taken by particular students across tasks. Recall that language socialization is

claimed to take place through repeated experiences in assuming various social roles in

recurrent activities that promote particular language use and communicative behaviors

associated with those roles (Duff, 1993a, 2003; Heath, 1998, 1999; Ochs, 1988, 2002;

Rogoff, 1990; Schieffelin, 1990; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986; see also Lave & Wenger,

1991; van Lier, 1996). Because of this, it is vital that language socialization research like

the present study goes beyond the confines of a single task, focusing on the activities of

particular individuals.

The present chapter therefore examines key students' learning across academic

tasks and contexts with the goal of providing a detailed description of their participatory

appropriation (Rogoff, 1990, 1993, 1995) with regard to the presentation tasks. In other

words, the chapter foregrounds the personal transformations of Keishin students through

their participation in their oral presentations over time. Again, because of limitations of

space, I will here focus on the task-related experiences of the original key students,

277
Tomo, Nana, Kiku, and Otome. Their emic perspectives, which were gained through in-

depth interviews, casual conversations, and audio-journal entries, helped me identify

"critical incidents" (Flanagan, 1954; Woods, 1993) or personally meaningful experiences

related to their learning across tasks and contexts.

As we have seen in earlier chapters, all Keishin students enrolled in Izzat's course

performed three presentations during the academic year: the poster sessions, the Semester

1 presentations, and the Semester 2 presentations. The original key students performed an

additional presentation during their studies at ELI. Before we examine their learning, a

few remarks should be made concerning the ELI assignments. On the first day of the ELI

course, Jamal, the instructor, gave the class a chance to discuss what assignments they

wished to do for the course, explaining that he wanted them to do something which they

considered meaningful for their own learning. The class then decided that they would

individually write two independent papers and make an eight-minute presentation either

individually or in pairs. As Excerpt 7.1 suggests, topics and the relative weighting for

these assignments were for the students to decide.

E x c e r p t 7.1

Jamal: As we can see, from the way we've been doing this class, - there's a lot of responsibilities
on the students. Okay? In terms of making decisions, choosing the topic, it would be easy
for the teacher to give you a topic. All right? But then you have to decide, that means you
have to think about it, you have to explore. What am I interested in - what should I talk
about or write about - what do I want to say. Yeah. Then you have to think about these
questions. Rather than - the teacher saying okay here you go. This topic. Please write.
(August 14, 2000)

For the oral presentation, many students collected data by interviewing people

and/or conducting questionnaires. Tomo and Kiku chose to work individually whereas

Nana and Otome each chose to work with another student. Since the ELI presentations

took place less than two weeks after the students' arrival in Canada, they provided the

278
students with important information about their task performance before being socialized

into the social practices of Izzat's classes.

7.1 Tomo's Learning across Tasks

In the second semester, in part inspired by his Language Fieldwork A course,

Tomo chose to take a regular course offered in the Department of Anthropology instead

of Language Fieldwork B. Because of this agency on his part, his Semester 2 activities

were not observed. However, an examination of his activities during the first five months

yields some valuable insights about his learning across tasks.

7.1.1 ELI Presentation

Tomo made his first presentation during his studies at ELI in August. For this

task, he chose to investigate the medical services plans of Canada. After this presentation,

Tomo commented that he could not speak as fluently as he had wished to as he could not

remember what he wanted to say. This perception seems to be supported by an

examination of the transcript.

Excerpt 7.2

Because (1.4) uh: welfare system in Canada is really sufficient. Somebody - uh: has
(0.9) (x) uh: in Canada, (0.7) we- people in Canada always pay very high tax? (05) But -
welfare is really sufficient. (0.8) You know in Ontario, (0.6) uh: (1.0) m (0.6) there's no
(0.5) no fee of the - in- uh medical insurance. Even in other (0.8) uh: states, uh: people
(1.0) yeah it's only less than 40 dollars per month we- people have to pay for the -
medical insurance - service. (5.9)

As Excerpt 7.2 suggests, Tomo's speech contained a number of disfluency markers such

as fillers, repetitions, and false starts, as well as frequent long pauses. Attributing this

"failure" to his lack of practice, he said that he had realized the importance of taking time

to know his content and rehearse his speech (August 10, 2000). According to Tomo, this

realization had shaped his willingness to spend time preparing with his group members

279
for their Semester 1 presentation (see Chapter 5). However, this is not to suggest that

Tomo used more disfluency markers than his peers. In fact, my observations and

conversations with students and the teacher suggested that he was considered by most of

his classmates to be one of the most fluent presenters in the class. It then follows that it

was Tomo's dissatisfaction with his own task performance that seemed to have

influenced how he would approach the subsequent task.

7.1.2 Poster Project

For the poster project, Tomo met with his group members Kiku and Yuji several

days to produce a poster comparing non-verbal communication in Canada and that in

Japan. Interestingly, only Kiku spoke at the poster session although both Tomo and Yuji

contributed as much to the project. Tomo and Yuji simply held their poster as Kiku

explained its meaning to the audience. This was because they were not prepared to talk

about their poster since they had not looked at the course outline and thought that all they

had to do was to submit their poster to the teacher. Tomo later said that he regretted not

having said a word and that if they had known about the oral presentation component of

the poster project, his group would perhaps have decided what role each member would

play. He also said that he learned the importance of looking at the course outline from

this experience.

7.1.3 Semester 1 Presentation

Tomo seem to have benefited from his interaction with the teacher during his

presentation. Excerpt 7.3 was taken from Tomo's Semester 1 presentation in which he

shared his experience at the job interview that he took for a position in the kitchen at a

street youth resource center. At this interview, the volunteer coordinator asked him what

280
he would do in three hypothetical but very realistic situations. One of these situations was

as follows:

A woman comes to you, according to her she was raped before, and now she is pregnant,
she will take abortion tomorrow. (PowerPoint document, November 23, 2000)

In Excerpt 7.3, Tomofirsttells the class that he responded to the coordinator that

he would talk with the woman, and then explains why this answer was wrong.

Excerpt 7.3
1 Tomo: The interview was- interview star- oh my- (0.5) my volunteer coordinator started -
interview suddenly. <Izzat: Hmm.> Uh: (1.3) she didn't look at any my resume.
Nothing. <Izzat: Hmm> ((several utterances later)) Okay. I answered. Uh I'll talk
with woman. (1.3) But my answer was totally wrong. (1.6) Here uh: (0.5) all the
volunteer are supposed to do is uh just tell the staff, and what happened to her. And
leave - all- leave all to - the staff. <Izzat: Hmm> The volunteer should not - uh:
touch the (0.7) should not care about the what happened to women - because it's
not- it will be uh dangerous to <Izzat: Hmm.> get involved in a - such an
accident? <Izzat: Hmm.> Cause it's a very serious and uh - delicate.

2 Izzat: So the volunteers are not qualified [to

3 Tomo: [Yeah, ((nods))

4 Izzat: uh to umm counsel or advice - the woman.

5 Tomo: Yes. ((nods))

6 Izzat: I see. (Class 3, November 23, 2000)

As her use of so indicates, Izzat summarizes Tomo's explanation and states her

inference (Schiffrin, 1987; van Lier, 1998a) in Lines 2 and 4. Note the conciseness of this

contribution (see Mohan & Beckett, 2001, for relevant discussion). On the other hand,

Tomo responds to this utterance with two simple yeses and nods. Thefirstyes and nod

occur immediately after Izzat's uttering of the word "qualify" (Line 2) and the second yes

and nod occur after the second half (Line 4). Thus, there is no indication here of the

repair of ill-formed utterances, which is claimed to facilitate SLA (see Chapter 1).

However, this seemingly simple exchange seems to have provided Tomo with an

281
opportunity for learning. Excerpt 7.4 comes from a subsequent section of the same

presentation where Tomo discussed volunteering in Canada.

Excerpt 7.4

If you have a good experience in volunteering in- in volunteering - which is what- which
is closely connected to a - job, (0.8) the company will let you work without - giving you a
- any education. (0.7) Because you are already qualified to work. <Izzat: Hmm.>
Right? (Class 3, November 23, 2000)

In Excerpt 7.4, Tomo is using the same expression as the one that Izzat used in Excerpt

7.3. Examinations of Tomo's rehearsal discourse indicate that this was not part of his

plan, suggesting that he might have appropriated Izzat's utterance.

Table 7.1: Comparison of Tomo's Writings

Field Journal 2 Final Paper

Suddenly she started interview test to make Suddenly she started an interview test to make
sure if I am an appropriate person to work sure I am qualified to work there, and ensure
there, or my way of thinkingfitsrules of this my way of thinkingfitthe rules of this
center. I answered that I would just listen to center.. .1 answered that I would just listen to
her to relieve her, then I will hitch staff to her to relieve her, and I will fetch staff to give
give her better advice. My answer was wrong, her better advice. My answer was totally
volunteer is not supposed to listen to her in wrong. There, a volunteer is not qualified to
that situation, because it is too serious. All listen to her in that situation, because this
we have to do is just to ask staff there. case is too serious and delicate. Moreover there
(October 19, 2000) is even the possibility I might be involved in an
incident. All the volunteer would have to do is
just tell staff what has happened to her, and
leave the rest to them. (December 1, 2000)

Table 7.1 compares Tomo's second field journal and final paper, both of which

report on his interview experience presented above. The journal was written prior to the

oral presentation while thefinalpaper was written after the presentation. As the table

shows, although he used other linguistic resources in the journal to realize the same

meaning, Tomo used in hisfinalpaper the phrase "be qualified to," which he had heard

Izzat use in his presentation. This indicates that Tomo appropriated the phrase from his

teacher. He later reported that although he knew the word "qualify," he learned from

282
Izzat's modeling how to use it in that particular context. However, the story does not end

here. After the presentation, Tomo consulted his bilingual dictionary for its usage and

used it in his final paper. In short, Tomo noticed Izzat's use of the phrase in the

presentation and checked the usage before using it in the paper. Thus, Tomo's

appropriation of the linguistic resource in his writing seems to have resulted from his

attentiveness to Izzat's turn (van Lier, 1992) and subsequent engagement with the uptake,

displaying not only contingency across utterances and interlocutors (van Lier, 1992,

1996, 1998), but also contingency across texts and tasks (i.e., intertextuality between the

oral presentation and the written report).

7.2 Nana's Learning across Tasks and Contexts

7.2.1 ELI Presentation

As reported in Chapter 6, in their presentation, Nana, Kiku, and Shingo

acknowledged the previous speaker and introduced the next speaker in order to avoid

"awkward" silences between turns. It was Nana who suggested that they do this intra-

group exchange. She reported that she had first noticed the exchange when her partner,

Kumi, used it in their ELI presentation in August. This is evidenced by the following

excerpt:

Excerpt 7.5

1 Nana: [Uh-huh (0.7) Uh-huh. (3.4) Good morning everyone, (1.3) Now - we'd like to talk
about our presentation. (0.8) Our presentation is about (0.5) what the: ELI is. (0.7)
Uh: (0.7) we - would like to uh: (0.5)findare there- whether there are any problems
or not. (0.7) We are also uh (0.6) ELI students right? And uh (1.0) uh: we'd like to
know about - where they come from or (0.9) the nationality, (0.5) or the self
satisfaction, or their (0.7) so all about the: (1.1) ELI students - ELI - teachers - ELI
facility-es. So let's start. (2.9) This is presented by Kumi, and Nana. So:firstI'd like
to talk about how to do research. (1.9) ...So - next - Kumi will talk about more
information about we're- our research. (2.3)

2 Kumi: Thanks, Nana. Now look at this graph please. (Class 3, August 11, 2000)

283
 As Nana's greeting ("Good morning everyone") indicates, this is the very

beginning of their presentation. At the end of her turn, Nana informs the audience that

Kumi will next talk about their research, which is followed by Kumi's acknowledgement

("Thanks, Nana"). Three months later, Nana still remembered this exchange and

suggested to Kiku and Shingo that they incorporate it into their presentation on their

experience as volunteers for Japanese classes. Like Tomo's case reported above, this can

be taken as an evidence for Nana's attentiveness to Kumi's utterance in Line 2. Here, it is

important to note that Kumi was an experienced English teacher from Japan who was as

old as Nana's mother. Nana reported that although she contributed her ideas to the
74

construction of the presentation, she chose to use mostly the language that Kumi provided

her. To quote Nana, Kumi was "a very good model to imitate" [original in Japanese]

(interview, August 11, 2000). Thus, Nana mostly played the role of a relative novice.

7.2.2 Semester 1 and 2 Presentations

Nana's major transformation seems to relate to her emergent role as a group

leader. As we saw in Chapter 5, Nana worked with Kiku on the Semester 1 presentation

task. This experience seemed to have helped her become prepared for her roles in the

Semester 2 task in several important ways. For one thing, Nana suggested to her new

group members, Shinpei and Azumi, that they should first look at the course outline to

consider what they were required to do. As reported in Chapter 5, this was exactly what

Kiku did for the Semester 1 task (see Excerpts 5.3 & 5.4). Another thing was that Nana

came to better appreciate the importance of the performance aspect of the presentation.

As she reflected upon her group work for the Semester 1 task, she commented that

initially she did not understand clearly why Kiku put so much emphasis on things like
74
Also, Kumi had taken Jamal's courses previous summers.

284
gestures, postures, and tones of voice although she certainly saw the importance of

making eye contact, but she came to understand the reason after she saw how the

audience responded to their presentation. She said in her audio-journal, "I learned from

Kiku how important it is for presenters to present themselves confidently and

enthusiastically" [original in Japanese] (November 17, 2000).

7.2.2.1 Becoming a Group Leader

In the group work that she did with Shinpei and Azumi for their presentation on

homeless issues in Maple Tree City, Nana appeared to play a leadership role most of the

time. Excerpt 7.5 took place the night before her group's presentation. Nana is giving

advice to Shinpei.

Excerpt 7.6

1 Nana: Ja de koko de Shinpei komakaku setsumei shite ne. Minna no kao o mi nagara.
Ne? [Now please give a detailed explanation here. Looking at everyone's face.
Okay?]

2 Shin: Un. [Yeah.]

3 Nana: Okki na koe de hakkiri to. Koko ga taisetsu nan dayo tte iu koto o minna ni
wakatte mora eruyoo ni. Human dignity are guaranteed in this shelter. De food toka
bathroom toka laundry dake ya naku te konna mono mo aru n yo tte toothpaste toka
shaving toka - [Loudly and clearly. So that everyone will see this is particularly
important. Human dignity are guaranteed in this shelter. And they not only provide
people with food, access to bathrooms and laundry facilities, and what not, but also
toothpaste and razors and -]

4 Shin: Aa soo ka. [Oh: you're right.] (Class 1, March 14, 2001)

In Line 1, Nana asks Shinpei to look at the audience and give a detailed

description of the service provided for people who stay at the homeless shelter that the

group visited for observations and interviews. As her utterances in Line 3 suggest,

Shinpei is to support the groups' claim that human dignity was maintained and valued in

the shelter. Nana then asks Shinpei, whose voice tended to be soft, to speak "loudly and

285
clearly" so that their audience will understand the important part of the presentation.

Moreover, Nana reported that she advised Shinpei during their task performance to make

eye contact and speak more loudly. Importantly, these roles are reminiscent of those,

performed by Kiku in their Semester 1 group work (see Chapter 5). Moreover, Nana

chose to be responsible for the conclusion of the Semester 2 presentation, which lasted

several minutes. Excerpt 7.7 is the final part of it.

Excerpt 7.7

1 Nana: And then (0.7) last one? (0.9) We have to (1.2) we decided to understand the who:le
structure of (1.4) homeless (2.9) issue (2.8) by analyzing the small factor. (4.1)
((pointing to the diagram on overhead.)) Here is a homeless issue? (1.5) And the
small factor means - what we found from our experience. What we found from the
data analysis. (0.6) Even in a small words. Even (1.1) even what felt (0.5) in small
things (1.5) we can see (0.6) we have to - understand the homeless issue - by analyze
these small factors (0.8) to the understanding (0.6) whole structure of homeless issue
(0.5) from here, ((pointing to the diagram on overhead.)) (1.5) Un. [Yeah.] (0.9) So:
(0.6) that is about- all about our presentation. (0.5) So - thank you for listening to us.

2 Class: [((clap hands))

3 Nana: [Does somebody have questions? (Class 1, March 9, 2001)

As her question in Line 3 indicates, Nana started to take questions from the

audience. She said, "Last time, Kiku did the conclusion for us, but this time, I'll do it"

(March 6, 2001), which suggests that she was more or less aware that she was taking on

the leading role that she had seen Kiku play in their Semester 1 project work.

7.2.2.2 Becoming a Critical Language User

Nana demonstrated another type of learning in her group's Semester 2

presentation. In Excerpt 7.8, she is explaining why their group decided not to use the term

"homeless" in theirfieldworkand presentation.

Excerpt 7.8

In this (0.6) presentation, we never say (1.4) about (1.0) the person who come to the -
shelter (0.5) call ((using a quoting gesture)) "homeless." (1.0) Because (0.9) once we call

286
 the person who come to that shelter (0.5) ((using a quoting gesture)) "homeless" that
means we already categorize them (1.1) as a homeless. (0.6) That means - "homeless"
means people doesn't have home- (0.5) doesn't have home. (1.6) So (2.1) we are ignoring
their individuality? (1.1) They're just categorized them as a "homeless." (1.1) So we
decided (0.7) not (0.6) we decided not to use the word "homeless" when we visit - the
organization. (1.1) Even tried to speak- even tried to (0.9) even not to the use word
homeless to the (0.5) person who works at the shelter. (Class 1, March 14, 2001)

In this example, Nana holds up and moves her indexfingersand middle fingers

virtually every time she utters the word "homeless." In their fieldwork, Nana and her

partners had opportunities to talk with a man staying at the shelter that they visited. After

hearing him say that he wanted to "go home," Nana realized that the word "homeless"

might be a misnomer to describe people who stay in shelters. She subsequently suggested

to her group members at one of their meetings that they should be careful in using the

term as the notion of "home" might varyfrompeople to people. As a result, Nana

decided to put the word in a quote to signal that her group was not committed to the

commonly held idea that shelter stayers do not have a "home." This seems to be an

example of what Maybin (2003, building on the work of Bakhtin, 1984) refers to as

parody, where "the evaluative perspective of the speaker and the parodied voice are in

opposition" (p. 161). Thus, Nana's use of the quoting gesture here reflects her (and her

partners') critical attitude toward the term.

After the presentation, Nana commented that she did not know what such a

gesture meant when she arrived in Canada, but she came to understand it as she observed

her classmates, dorm mates, and teachers use it in conversations and lectures. In short, the

above example seems to suggest Nana's expanded repertoire of meaning-making

resources as well as her (and her partner's) developing critical thinking skills, which were

highly valued in the classroom culture (see Chapter 4).

287
7.3 Kiku's Learning Across Tasks and Contexts

7.3.1 ELI Presentation

As an experienced performer of comic dialogues and a former member of an

English club at Keishin University, Kiku liked the idea of giving an oral presentation

from the beginning of his studies in Canada. He valued interaction with his audience and

made efforts to make his presentation interactive and participatory. This is indicated by

his use of questions in the following excerpts from his ELI presentation in which he

reported on people's perceptions of services provided by Airline A and other airline

companies:

Excerpt 7.9

1 Kiku: Have you ever tried this one? (1.0) Airline B? (1.9)

2 ((two people raise their hands))

3 Kiku Oh: two people. (0.7) Jack - uh where's - the best airline (0.6) in the - world -

for you.

4 Jack: Best airline? =

5 Kiku: = Yeah. (1.4)

6 Jack: Umm. (1.5) Maybe I would choose the (1.2) the Airline C -

7 Kiku: Airline C. AH: thanks. Actually number two is Airline C. (Class C, August 15, 2000)

In Excerpt 7.9, Kiku asks two questions: the first one is directed to all the

members of the audience (Line 1) and the second one to a particular student (Line 3).

These questions result in the audience's behavioral and verbal contributions in Lines 2, 4,

and 7. Excerpt 7.10 shows how Kiku made use of humor in his presentation.

288
Excerpt 7.10

1 Kiku: And uh (1.2) I think there's enough to complain- to bring some complaints into (0.6)
Airline A agency like Satomi, (0.9) or like Jamal?

2 Ss: ((laugh)) (Class C, August 15, 2000)

Kiku elicited laughter from the audience by mentioning the names of a classmate

and the teacher, both of whom had had a negative experience with Airline A. These

experiences were part of the "common knowledge" (Edwards & Mercer, 1987) of the

class as they had been shared previously in class discussion. Thus, Kiku said that he

considered building on the knowledge of one's audience to be fundamental to making

one's speech humorous. In short, as the above excerpts suggest, Kiku demonstrated his

skill of involving his audience in hisfirstoral presentation made in Canada. Interestingly,

however, Kiku commented at his interview that he seemed to have failed to actively

engage his audience. This self-assessment seemed to be in sharp contrast with those of

his classmates, most of whom expressed their appreciation for Kiku's skills to relate to

the audience and hold their attention.

However, as Kiku himself said later, his ELI presentation seemed to have room

for improvement. For one thing, Kiku said that the content of the presentation lacked

"depth" (interview, December 3, 2000) or critical reflection. Excerpts 7.11 and 7.12 were

taken from the body and conclusion of Kiku's ELI presentation, respectively.

Excerpt 7.11

And FIRST, UH: (0.5) I asked uh: fourteen Canadians (0.6) I just-1 was focusing on
Canadians (0.7) coz (1.1) I wanted to know - why uh how (0.5) how Canadians uh:
think about (1.5) uh toward Airline A. (1.3) And then the first question is "Do you like
Airline A? Yes or No." I asked them directly. (0.9) And the answer is (1.0) s- uh:
surprisingly (1.2) seven people answered "Yes" and (0.9) on the other hand - seven
people - answered "No." (0.5) And then some of them are really (0.6) it - seemed (0.5)
they hated Airline A. (0.8) Some of them are seemed to hate Airline A. (0.9) And then
uh: as I told you before (0.7) uh one person (0.7) who is a Canadian boy (0.7) you know

289
 he said that - "you- you have to go to Airline A- Airline A agency (0.5) or Travel
Agency A to say (0.8) complaints (1.0) or something." (Class C, August 15, 2001)

Although he justified his decision to focus on Canadian people in his study, Kiku mostly

informed the audience of his questions and his participants' answers (Staab, 1986).

Moreover, Kiku mentioned that his ELI presentation had no conclusion.

Excerpt 7.12

And uh conclusion is I'd- (0.6) uh we'd - rather fly with airlines that has - better service
than Airline A. (1.3) So Canadian people are hoping - better service airline than Airline
A. I really felt (0.6) from the heart (0.6) my body. (Class C, August 15, 2001)

For the ELI presentation task, Kiku, like some other students, chose to work by

himself. He said that while at WPU, he wanted to put himself in a sink-or-swim situation

in order to learn most from his experience.

7.3.2 Poster Project

As we have seen in Section 7.1.2, Kiku and Tomo worked together on the poster

project; however, they were not aware of the oral presentation component of the project

and thus did not do anything to prepare. As a result, Kiku was the only member that

spoke at the poster session. Kiku commented in his audio-journal as follows:

Excerpt 7.13

Well, 1 didn't know until the class that we were doing a presentation. When I heard this, I
was very puzzled. Well, I guess I managed to do it somehow and I think I can give
myself 80 points (for the task performance). But I'm not satisfied at all. That's because
there're some parts that I feel I should have cut. I thought so because my goal is always
to draw my audience's attention without making them bored.. .well another thing is that I
was not sure whether I should speak solo or let Tomo and Yuji speak, but I ended
up doing it all by myself, [original in Japanese] (October 6, 2000)

At his retrospective interview, Kiku said, like Tomo, that if his group had known about it,

they would certainly have at least decided on their roles, and that he regretted not having

checked the course outline. As reported in Chapter 5, Kiku suggested to his partners for

290
the Semester 1 project that they first look at the course outline, which seems to be

informed by his experience with the poster project.

Moreover, Kiku said that he had learned from this experience the value of

deciding what to accomplish at the beginning of each group meeting. At virtually every

group meeting, Tomo almost always initiated a group discussion to set an agenda for the

meeting, which Kiku felt helped the group stay on task and work efficiently.

7.3.3 Semester 1 Presentation

As reported in Chapter 5, for the Semester 1 project, Kiku decided to make a

group presentation with Nana and Shingo, both of whom volunteered in the same

Japanese class at WPU.

Excerpt 7.14

So - by uh: respecting other persons, (0.7) in our case not to speak Japanese in uh: uh: in
front of people from uh: people uh: who are speaking another language - not Japanese.
(0.8) That means - "to put ourselves in (2.2) ((looks at the screen)) others' place."
((looking back at the audience)) Do you know uh: what I mean? (0.7) So someone else's
feeling. (1.1) Someone else's feeling. So (0.8) "wha- what- what- what is she - thinking
about if I speak Japanese here." (Class 3, November 16, 2000)

As we have seen in Chapter 4, one important goal of Language Fieldwork was to

help students develop critical thinking skills, which Izzat considered to be abilities to

think beyond what one sees and reads. Excerpt 7.14 shows how Kiku went beyond what

he had experienced by "projecting into the feelings.. .of others" (Staab, 1986, p. 114). To

use Izzat's words, he was able to "make meaning" out of hisfieldexperience.

Importantly, as sociocultural theories of learning (Bruner, 1996; Lantolf & Pavlenko,

2001; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1995; Wertsch et al., 1993) suggest, this was not a

solo accomplishment by Kiku, but a joint accomplishment of his group. As we have seen

in Chapter 5, although it was Kiku who felt uncomfortable when the two JSL students

291
started to speak in Chinese and subsequently shared this experience with his group

members, it was the series of negotiations that he had with his partners at their group

meetings that provided him with opportunities for further reflection and which thus

shaped his task performance in Excerpt 7.14.

Similarly, in Excerpt 7.15, which is part of the conclusion of the group

presentation, Kiku argues that it is important for their classmates to be conscious about
75

Japanese culture in learning to become intercultural communicators. As we saw in

Chapter 5 (see Excerpt 5.13), this lesson was drawn from Kiku and his partners'

experiences of not being able to answer their JSL students' questions about the culture of

Japan.

Excerpt 7.15

So umm...just be more - conscious about Japa- Japanese (0.7) things once again.
(0.6) Then, (0.5) I think you can get uh (0.5) umm many perspectives many
perspectives. (1.0) And uh: (0.6) I think um I- we put uh international, the word
international ((referring to the screen)) here. Coz - when you go to another country -
probably you explain- you'll be able to explain (0.8) a lot of things about Japan. Coz you
know much about Japan. If you be conscious about many things - then even a (1.4)
uh: (0.7) normal thing is not normal. (1.6) Umm so (0.7) think about it -in that way.
(November 16, 2000)

Moreover, Kiku explains consequences of people becoming conscious about their

own culture ("you can get uh umm many perspectives" and "even a uh: normal thing is

not normal"), thereby demonstrating his group's reasoning about their own experience. In

other words, Kiku again went beyond mere descriptions of their activities and

observations. At his post-task interview, Kiku commented that he had learned from the

Semester 1 project work that it was important to spend time reflecting upon his

experiences and observations and that it helped to engage in this reflection with his peers.

75
As Kiku's use of the second person pronoun and imperatives ("Just be conscious..." and "think about
it...") suggests, Kiku realizes his (or his group's) meaning as advice to the audience.

292
7.3.4 Semester 2 Presentation

For the Semester 2 project, Kiku explored the culture of First Nations people with

Hiroki. Although they were in different departments at Keishin University, they had

known each other relatively well before their arrivals in Canada. As part of this

investigation, Kiku and Hiroki interviewed a female participant, to whom Izzat

introduced them.

7.3.4.1 Organizing Discourse

In the Semester 2 presentation, Kiku gave a verbal outline of their talk, explaining

who would talk about what in what order.

Excerpt 7.16

Kiku: Today uh ((pointing to the outline written on the board)) today's uh table (1.2) a:nd next
Hiroki is going to talk about - u:mm - concept of the First Nation - uh: which is uh totally
different - totally different from our (0.6) uh: sense of value. (0.5) So it's gonna be uh
interesting I think. (0.5) And also next uh::: history of (0.6) uh be- brief history - uh:
mainly regarding umm school (0.9) First Nations' school history. (0.6) And next uh: -
discriminations uh including umm (0.5) different factors umm some factors. (1.2) A:nd
then umm (1.0) story umm about (0.8) uh First Nation person- the: first - interview (1.2)
out of - the two, we got. (0.8) And finally we are - going to conclude our presentations.
(Class 3, March 9, 2001)

As reported in Chapter 6, this kind of metadiscourse was employed by fewer groups in

Semester 1 than in Semester 2. In fact, this was the first time that Kiku used such

discourse. At the final group meeting before their presentation (but not the last before

completing their written report), Kiku suggested to Hiroki that they give a verbal outline,

referring to some of the "good" Semester 1 presentations that he observed.

7.3.4.2 Learning to Improvise

As he reviewed his Semester 2 presentation, Kiku said that another thing that he

had become able to do was to speak more naturally than he did at the beginning of the

academic year, referring to Excerpt 7.15. This example comes from the conclusion

293
section of their presentation. Responsible for the first half of it, Hiroki starts to talk in

Line 1; however, as his use of thefillersuh and so as well as the relatively long pause

suggest, he seems to have trouble executing his speech plan and, indeed, later said that he

was so nervous that he forgot what to say and that he appreciated Kiku's improvisation.

In Line 4, Kiku elaborates on Hiroki's statements by using a relevant metaphor. As such,

this long turn was not part of the pair's plan.

Excerpt 7.17

1 Hiro: So: (1.5) in conclusion - next, uh: through our survey (0.8) we recognized uh (1.5) it-
(0.6) we want to know about the First Nations people. (0.8) It's (2.2) uh: it's not good
to - pretend to understand their culture.<Izzat: Hmm> I mean the - they don't like
the person who talks about the (0.5) First Nations with (x) knowledge. (1.1) So (0.6)
it's a First Nations true feeling. (2.3) Uh: (1.8) so ((clears his throat. Kiku smiles and
some students laugh)) (3.8)

4 Kiku: Uh - so: it's like a same kind of idea. If- (0.5) if it happens in our - u:mm daily
conversation some- (0.5) some people are in a talk about things (0.5) umm as if
they understood (0.5) everything and (xx) baseball - even if they don't know
(0.8) about (0.8) much about it. (1.1) So (0.5) and also especially in afieldof
publications one of the - interviewees said uh (0.8) a lot of - uh: authors, (0.9)
who write about - First Nations (0.8) but they don't know much about it. (0.6) It-
- some of the contents are (0.7) u:mm absolutely different from (0.5) what they
are doing or what their - culture - is. So - they - get really umm angry of course.
(2.8)

5 Hiro: Yeah. So (0.8) it's not good to behave the - as if (0.6) we understand the culture very
well, (Class 3, March 9, 2001)

Interestingly, Kiku commented after this presentation that while considering himself to be

a better presenter in many respects than he was when he did his ELI presentation, he

believed that there was one thing that his "current self should learn from his "past self

(April 14, 2001): namely, to speak clearly.

7.3.4.3 Learning to Comment Like a Teacher

After Koyuki and Fuyumi's Semester 2 presentation, Kiku gave them comments

about their task performance on their class bulletin board.

294
Excerpt 7.18

Subject: re: well done!

Hi, Fuyumi and Koyuki,

Your presentation was very very well done, I think. Although there is quite a bit
differential between your amount of time for presentation preparation and ours (since we
accidentally chose the first week to do presentation in the lottery), the contents of your
presentation was very coherent and organized. Apart from that, I was thinking during
the presentation that the way you speak is just like a teacher or so because you were
really calm down and you speak with great conviction, which perhaps comes from the
tone of your voice or so...

Anyhow, the presentation was worthwhile, including prenty (plenty) of information I

had never known, and that will be a great help next time when I think about new
Japanese immigration system and policy.

Bye,

Kikujiro (Bulletin board communication, March 31, 2001)

In this message, Kiku uses a variety of attitudinal resources (see Table 7.2) to

express his appreciation (Eggins & Slade, 1997; Mohan, 1986). According to Eggins and

Slade (1997), "Appreciation can be probed by the question: 'what do/did you think of

that?' Grammatically, lexical items of Appreciation tend to fit into cognitive mental

process structures such as: I think/know/understand/believe that it was" (p. 126). Kiku's

first utterance following the greeting ("Your presentation was very very well done, I

think.")fitsthis pattern nicely.

Table 7.2: Kiku's Use of Appreciation Resources

Type Sample
Adjectives Very very well done, very coherent and
organized, really calm down Tsicl, worthwhile
Nouns Just like a teacher, with great conviction, a
prenty fsicl of information, a great help

What is striking about the above message is that Kiku's language is reminiscent

of Izzat's. In fact, Kiku commented that he had picked up words like "coherent" and

295
"organized" as he observed the teacher give comments to her students on numerous

occasions. What this suggests is that he not only learned how to use L2 resources for

evaluation, but also developed a theoretical understanding of the oral presentation task

(Mohan, 1986), namely, what it meant to do a "good" oral presentation in the classroom

community.

7.3.5 Model Presentation

One week after arriving in Japan, Kiku volunteered to give a presentation on how

to do a "good" academic presentation with another Keishin 10 student, Wataru, for a

group of Keishin 11 students preparing to go to Canada. The purpose of this presentation

was two-fold. First, it was intended to inform the Keishin 11 students what it takes to do

a "good" presentation at WPU. Second, it was intended as an opportunity for the new

students to observe a model performance. Thus, Kiku and Wataru's task was to help their

koohai or juniors (see Chapter 3) understand the theory and practice of the academic oral

presentation (Mohan, 1986).

Excerpt 7.19

First uh: I'm gonna tell you uh: the reason why we're going to do presentation - for today.
Umm - at in WPU - uh: presentation is basically occupy and - from twenty percent to::
sixty percent aprrox- approximately - of all your marks. So - presentations are really
important so - you should probably uh: put effort into it. And umm - uh - some- one
of the classes that ((referring to Wataru)) he was taking in term 1 at WPU - uh actually
presentation occupied uh ninety percent of all - the mark. So - umm you had definitely
be better - uh good at presentation. A:nd - and also uh ((referring to their own
presentation)) this is uh - for preparation - for your presentation at WPU. Okay?
(May 7, 2001)

In this excerpt, Kiku explains the values attached to the oral presentation in courses

offered at WPU just as Abraham did before giving his model presentation several months

earlier (see Chapter 4). Excerpt 7.20 is thefinalsection of Kiku and Wataru's

presentation.

296
Excerpt 7.20

1 Kiku: U:mm - the first uh: suggestion - uh basically in academic presentations - like uh
presentations you are going to do - at WPU, u:mm it is quite natural to follow the
strategy we - showed you - today. Introduction, body parts, - conclusion, uh: this
is a kind of rule - umm principle that you have to follow. Uh: - in any situations
like where you do uh when you do presentations. At least you have to - uh follow the
presentation. And teachers and professors - uh like mark you - being based on these
uh: - rules. Yeah, ((looks at Wataru))

2 Wata: ((looks at Kiku and nods)) Uh: - so in addition - we suggest you that - taking
advantage of tactics of presentation as we suggested before, - and then (use those)
to make your presentation - more attractive and more organized.

3 Kiku: And most importantly - following the uh: - strategy, - the most important thing is -
to - show express your original - type of presentation. Put something original - to
your presentation. This is the most important part. Uh - despite following the
strategy - everyone can do it probably. So to make your presentation original - and
better ones - then add up some - original elements - to your presentation. Yes.
Okay. This is the end of presentation.

3 Wata: Yeah.

4 Kiku: Thank you very much. (May 7, 2001)

Kiku and Wataru discuss the importance of following the introduction-body-conclusion

format, using the strategies that they mentioned in the presentation, and incorporating

original elements. Thus, as experienced members of the Keishin program, Kiku and

Wataru demonstrated their understanding of the task that they had developed during their

year-long studies at WPU, which might have remained unnoticed had it not been for this

occasion (Wenger, 1998). To adapt Wenger's (1998) terms, last year's newcomers

became this year's old-timers.

However, as Kiku and Wataru themselves admitted, their task performance did

not go as well as they had expected. For one thing, they seemed to have failed to practice

what they preached. In fact, during the post-presentation discussion, the Program

Director, while agreeing with the content of the presentation, pointed out that although

Kiku and Wataru stressed the importance of interacting with the audience by asking

297
questions, they did not demonstrate this act in their modeling. Kiku later said to me that

there were two possible reasons for this "failure" (May 7, 2001). He said that one reason

was that he was under pressure: "I was thinking I could not blow it for the life of me,

because I would speak as a representative of the Keishin 10 group, as it were" [original in

Japanese] (Interview, May 7, 2001). The other possible reason was that Kiku found it

difficult to ask questions of the audience because he hardly knew them, which made him

even more nervous. Nevertheless, this presentation showed how Kiku played the role of a

relative old-timer in his role of socializing newcomers.

7.4 Otome's L e a r n i n g across Tasks and Contexts

Perhaps it was Otome who made the most dramatic personal transformation

among all the key students. As we will see later, one major challenge that she faced in

doing presentation was not to read her manuscripts in order to interact with her audience.

While Kiku liked the oral presentation from the beginning, Otome was not too excited

about the idea of speaking in public. In these respects, Otome's experience stood in clear

contrast with that of Kiku as reported above.

7.4.1 Poster Presentation

For the poster project, Otome decided to work with Ringo and Ichiro, both of

whom were good friends of hers, living in the same dorm. While many other groups

presented in their posters their own ideas about and understanding of non-verbal

communication, this group went further and incorporated into their poster the results of a

questionnaire they administered to study people's perceptions of major characters in a

Japanese cartoon (Appendix K). In other words, they presentedfindingsof their primary

research on the academic topic (Appendix L).

298
 The following exchange between Otome and Ringo took place right before their

group started their poster presentation in October. They covertly reconfirm their task

procedure in Japanese.

Excerpt 7.21

1 Otome: Yomu de. Yomu dakeya ro? ((whispering)) [I will read from my notes. We will
only read right?]

2 Ringo: Un. Demo namae yuwana akan. ((whispering)) [Yeah. But we should tell them what
our names are.] (Class 1, October 5, 2000)

As this backstage talk suggests, Otome chose to read out her manuscripts for this task.

Here, it is important to note that while the instructor intended the poster session to be an

informal occasion for her students to share their work, this group took it more seriously

than other groups and prepared a formal presentation. The following is an excerpt from

Otome's speech:

Excerpt 7.22

((holding a manuscript)) Nonverbal communication can be seen in a variety of situation.

(1.0) One of the example is cartoon. In every cartoon - the author - use nonverbal
communication in order to help reader understand characters unconsciously. Such as
appearance of characters, their expression, and so on. (0.6) To examine - how- how it
influence readers impression of characters (0.7) 10 WPU students were answered- uh
asked - what kind of personality they - guesses each character have. (0.8) And what made
them think so. We showed (0.6) them, - the picture, exactly the same (0.6) as this picture?
(1.3) None of WPU students know these picture - well. Each character was picked up
from Doraemon - you know, ((laughs)) It is one of the most popular - cartoon in Japan.
(1.3) The result of survey - is shown under the picture, - to show how subject guesses are
different from or similar to - the author's intention. - The personality of those characters
exhibited to- next to the- next to the result of the survey. So this graph- this graph shows
- the survey of (0.7) - uh the re- survey of - WPU students' guesses. And this shows (0.5)
each personality which also intented- intended. (Classroom discourse, October 5, 2000)

Here, boldface is used to signify unscripted parts of Otome's speech. As can be seen, her

unscripted language production appears to have been limited to the use offillers("uh,"

"you know") and self-correction of misread words. In short, what Otome did for this task

was a manuscript delivery because she mostly read her speech from her manuscript

299
(Beebe & Beebe, 2000). As such, eye contact appeared to be sacrificed. In the following

audio-journal entry, Otome expressed her satisfaction with Ringo's task performance and

her own:

Excerpt 7.23

As for the presentation, Ringo and I planned and rehearsed what to say. But Ichiro didn't
((laughs)), so he spent too much time doing his part... Some people weren't prepared,
and I was glad that our group spent some time preparing for the presentation. Also,
our presentation had solid content. Many groups simply talked about their posters.
But we reported our researchfindingsas well. (October 5, 2000, original in Japanese)

Also, Otome commented in the reflective interview that she was satisfied with her own

task performance as well as with their poster. These comments together seem to suggest

that Otome was primarily concerned with presenting their research findings in a timely

manner. In other words, her (and Ringo's) focus seems to have been on ideational

reflection, rather than on interpersonal action (Mohan, in press; Wells, 1999a).

7.4.2 Semester 1 Presentation

For the Semester 1 presentation, Otome chose to work with Chie, who

volunteered at the same travel agency. As we saw in Chapter 4, students were required to

report orally on their experience as volunteers and their discovery and learning from this

experience. Furthermore, they were required to connect the theory (i.e., what they learned

from their lectures and textbooks) and practice (i.e., what they experienced and/or

observed during their fieldwork) of intercultural communication. However, having found

it difficult to make a presentation involving in-depth discussion based solely on their

experiences and observations, Otome and Chie jointly decided to conduct questionnaires

to examine the possible communication barriers between Japanese employees and non-

Japanese employees at the travel agency. Otome explained this decision in her term paper

as follows:

300
Excerpt 7.24

As I described, I could not find what I was interested in because I did only chores (at the
travel agency). Therefore, I could not relate my work to the Inter-Cultural
Communication that I was learning about in my class. When I considered my chores
and the way that my work could be related to my class subject, I noticed that there are
3 English speakers in the office. I was interested in how they managed with a lot of
Japanese speakers. However, since they were all doing their personal jobs and Japanese
speakers spoke to English speakers in English, I could not find a big communication
barrier between them. I supposed that Japanese speakers felt a little anxious when
they spoke in English and English speakers found them (themselves) being a little
isolated. As I was interested in finding their real feelings, I did research on Japanese
and English speakers after my work finished, (term paper, 2000, pp. 2-3, emphasis
added)

Otome and Chie incorporated findingsfromthis study into their presentation. Thus, as

active agents, Otome and Chie acted beyond the structure of their task (Heath, 2000a).

7.4.2.1 Otome's Apprehension

Several days before her Semester 1 presentation, Otome expressed in her audio-

journal her apprehension about the end-of-semester presentation.

Except 7.25

Well, I'm not confident (about my task performance). You know, everyone was
remembering very well what he or she was supposed to say, right? They were not reading
from their notes. But I feel nervous about doing it (speaking without reading from
my notes) in front of the class. Well, I will do whatever I can do anyway. I am
extremely busy now; for example, I have to do the assignment for Gary's class. But I will
do my best anyway. That's all I have to report now. Bye. [original in Japanese]
(audio-journal, November 18, 2000)

By this time, Otome had seen most groups' presentations since her group's presentation

was scheduled for the final day. As the above excerpt suggests, having noticed that many

of her classmates did not read their notes in their presentations, she felt under pressure,

wondering if she had to give her speech without looking at her notes. Otome then started

to practice reading her manuscripts in order to learn them by heart.

After serious consideration, Otome chose to do a combination of memorized and

manuscript delivery (Beebe & Beebe, 2000) so as to "tell the audience as accurately as

301
possible" about her groups' activities and thoughts (interview, November 23, 2000).

During her task performance, Otome occasionally looked down to read her manuscript.

When she was not looking at her manuscript, she appeared to be looking at one point in

the air, trying to remember her lines. However, this strategy was not free from cost.

Excerpt 7.26 is an example taken from Otome's presentation.

Excerpt 7.26

Otom: On the other hand, (0.6) English speakers should - inform, (0.6) Japanese speakers of
their feelings, - and discu:ss (2.3) discuss sorry, ((smiles and looks at her manuscript))
(0.6) discu:ss - ((laughing bashfully)) in- in order to (0.8) change office con: -
circumstances better to- better for work. (1.6) And then, they - will be interested in each
other, (1.5) uh - ((laughing)) interested in parts, ((back in her regular voice)) (0.5) where
they didn't know before, and "recognize and value each other." (Class 1, November 23,
2000)

In this example, Otome was giving her speech from her memory. As her

repetition of the word discuss suggests, she forgot her lines and looked at her script;

however, she could not figure out soon where she was on the manuscript. She had this

kind of memory problem several times during her presentation. In her audio-journal, she

reflected as follows:

Excerpt 7.27

Well, I was nervous. I couldn't help speaking very fast. When I forgot what to say and
stopped, my mind went blank. And I was like, "What was the word? Yeah this is it." It
was like I spoke again and stopped again. The presentation was not a speech I made in
English while thinking (how to say what I had to say). It seems that I only said what I had
remembered, rather than thinking about the content in English. It was rather delivering
what I had remembered, [original in Japanese] (November 23, 2000)

Thus, what Otome did for the Semester 1 task was similar to the recitation and reading of

a written text. Importantly, her partner Chie approached the task in a similar way.

7.4.2.2 Connecting Theory and Practice

As mentioned earlier, Otome and Chie's primary concern was to draw

connections between their observations and the content of the textbook. In Excerpt 7.28,

302
which is part of the discussion section of their presentation, they make a number of

references to the textbook content. For example, Chie quotes the author Jandt (1998)

("Textbook said - mentioned...") to provide a definition of the cultural dominance

model. Both Chie and Otome appropriate this definition in their subsequent speech.

Moreover, their use of terms such as communication barriers, cultural diversity, and

intercultural communicators, indicates intertextual links to content of the textbook.

Excerpt 7.28

1 Chie: As we mentioned (1.2) we researched if Japanese speakers find any - communication

barriers because they are working in a different culture. (0.9) But (2.0) but (1.7) most
of them (1.2) didn't find any communication barriers. And only uh minority of- uh
minority English speakers do. (3.0) We think it's same to the uh: type of culture
dominance model. Textbook said- mentioned that (1.9) the culture dominance
model "neither recognize nor values - about values culture diversity." [an excerpt
from Jandt's (1998, p. 447) book.] Look at this diagram, ((showing a diagram on
OHP)) Bi- the biggest circle (1.3) shows uh majority of a culture. And small circle
shows subgroup of a- of the culture. And - if they - "neither recognize nor - value
the other's culture diversity," it can be said that there is- there is culture's
dominance model between them. And in the case of XYZ, (2.0) umm we found-
find that - Japanese speakers didn't recognize that there're- there're cultural diversity,
in their office. So: we think - the case of XYZ can be said - a type of culture
dominance model. (4.6)

2 Otom: Next, - we will suggest (0.6) how they can - remove this barriers at XYZ, and what it
will take for XYZ office worker to be a good intercultural communicators? (0.6)
[Izzat: Mm-hmm.] First of all, they should remove the type of that dominance- uh
cultural dominance model, (0.5) and "recognize and value them- value each
other." (1.2) And Japanese speakers should (0.5) put themselves in English speakers'
place, (0.5) and consider removing (0.4) their isolation. (1.1) (Class 1, November 23,
2000)

As the following feedback suggests, Otome and Chie's discussion was well

received by their teacher. As a matter of fact, the students received an A+ for their

presentation.

Excerpt 7.29

Izzat: Most importantly I liked the way that you're able to umm connect (0.8) w- what you
learned in the text - to what you learned in your volunteering experiences. And uh to
the degree that you're even able to uh suggest - a model. You're able to interpret uh the:

303
 situation at umm XYZ to understand that as a cultural dominance model. And also able to
suggest a better model for them to have so that they can improve the situation there.
Umm that's very good. (Class 1, November 23, 2000)

Likewise, Otome commented on the presentation in her audio-journal as follows:

Excerpt 7.30

I think our presentation was perhaps good because the content was connected to
intercultural communication. As I had expected, I felt nervous while presenting. I
[inadvertently] skipped some parts. Yeah. But I know that we got about 90 [for the task]
and ((using polite register jokingly)) it seems to me that our presentation was
fine...((back in regular register)) Well, maybe it was not a kind of presentation that a
regular Canadian or fluent speaker of English is capable of giving. But ((using polite
register jokingly)) I am happy that it turned out to be a good piece of research,
nonetheless, (audio-journal, November 2000)

In sum, Otome was aware of the importance of not depending heavily on her

notes in order to make strong eye contact with her audience. But apprehensive about not

reading and missing important information, she chose to do a combination of manuscript

and memorized delivery. She was satisfied with the research but dissatisfied with her task

performance.

7.4.3 Semester 2 Presentation

For the Semester 2 project, Otome chose to work with Ringo again. Because of

Ringo's strong interest in anthropology, the students decided to investigate the

socialization of children in a First Nations community. Their focus was on a particular

practice, namely, the practice of people saying, "I'm proud of who I am," before finishing

their speech in a talking circle.

As reported earlier, Otome was dissatisfied with the way in which she delivered

her speech for the Semester 1 presentation. To improve her interaction with the audience,

Otome did not write a manuscript this time. Instead, she prepared transparencies and did

304
a combination of talking and reading delivery. Table 7.3 juxtaposes Otome's spoken

utterances with her sentences shown on the transparencies. Again, boldface is used to

signify relatively spontaneous parts of her speech. Obviously, there is a greater amount of

spontaneous speech here than in the last three presentations. Otome said that she did not

think that she could have done this even if she had tried, appreciating her own L2

development.

Table 7.3: Comparison of Written and Spoken Utterances

OHP Spoken Utterances

ABC children who live on reserve So we could see A B C Nations, (2.2) and - ABC children
gather to the community center on who live on reserve (0.9) gather [[to]] the- the community
every Tuesdays and they dance, center [[on]] every Tuesdays, [[and]] - They dance, sing,
sing and listen to the story. like traditional dancing, and singing uh son- songs, and
listen to the story - like A B C Nation original stories or
fairy tales. (1.8)
They make a circle and each child And - in the meeting - they made a circle - like circle.
has to say something like "What is And uh which is called talking circle. And - each -
my name," "where 1 come from" children has to say something like - what is my name -
and "how I feel now". where I come from - and how I feel now. I will give you
example (0.6) umm the girl- one- the girls of - the one
girl of uh, one - children- chau [no] - one child of-
11

them uh the name is whatever. And - she said - she

come from A B C . And - she talk about weather. Like -
this- today is nice weather. And she talk about - u:mm
today's - today I had a good time at school or
something like that.
We heard all of them said "I am - we heard all of them said - I'm
And - at that- that time
proud of who I am" at the end of proud of who I am. Umm at the end of their speech.
their speech.
We both got curious about the So - we got both curious - about the phrase - and
phase and decided to focus on wondered do they chose to say - I'm proud of who I
"socialization' of ABC Nations. am? O r the adult - the A B C adult - made them do so.
So we decided to - focus on - socialization of ABC
Nations. (2.2)

Another noticeable change to Otome's task performance was that she employed

questions to interact with the audience for thefirsttime. In Excerpt 7.31, Otome shows

Ringo did not write her speech this time, either, although she depended heavily on her manuscripts for
the poster and Semester 1 presentations.
77
This seems to be private speech that Otome used to regulate her own L2 production.

305
the name of the community center that they visited, which consisted only of several

numbers and alphabets. In Line 1, Otome asks Wataru to read the name. In Line 4,

Wataru indicates that he does not know how to read it. Otome then prompts him to give it

a try.

Excerpt 7.31

1 Otom: Okay. Thank you Ringo. (3.4) So next I will talk about (1.0) what we did for our
research. (2.3) After we decided umm research about First Nations - we coul- we
couldn't narrow down our topics. (1.2) But fortunately (0.6) umm we - when we talk
about (1.2) umm First Nations to Mr. Yamamoto (0.8) Mr. Yamamoto invited us to
go to see ABC Nations. (1.1) Se we could have a chance to go to ABC Nations
community center in [[City A]]. (1.6) And this is the - community center's name.
Wataru - can you pronounce it?

2 Rin: ((smiles))

3 Izzat: ((laughs)) Ha-ha-ha.

4 Wata: ((laughs)) It's impossible.

5 Otom: Try it.

6 Wata: Mm -1 know the - yeah it seems uh alphabet, but the pronunciation is totally

different.

7 Izzat: [(x) -

8 Otom: [Oh don't worry. We can't pronounce it either.

9 Class: ((laugh))

10 Wata: Ah: ((laughs)) (Class 1, March 29, 2001)

As her utterances in Line 8 indicate, neither Otome nor Ringo knew how to read

the name. As it was only a few minutes before their group presentation that Otome and

Ringo realized this, they did not have a chance to check with the contact person of the

community. Hearing Ringo say, "Someone might know," Otome decided to first ask the

audience if anyone knew how to read the name. At that time, she saw it a chance to

interact with her audience. Otome later said, "I thought that I should ask questions like

306
other groups to make our presentation interesting" [original in Japanese] (interview,

March 29, 2001).

Interestingly, as the above excerpt shows, Otome changed her plan and asked

Wataru, a particular individual, rather than addressing the question to the entire audience.

After the presentation, Otome said that she thought that Wataru would not mind even if

he did not know how to read it. Wataru was one of the most active students in the Keishin

community, and served the group as a class representative throughout the year. He was

very social and likeable, and often played the role of a "clown." According to Dornyei

and Murphey (2003), clowns are needed in a classroom community because they "bring

in humour, which helps the group relax and attend to the task" (p.l 16). Otome was

familiar with Wataru's characters and roles in the Keishin community since they had

known each other since their ELI studies in the summer. What is intriguing about the

above excerpt then is that Otome made an informed choice as to whom to ask her

question so as to make her speech more interactive and enjoyable.

At the final class meeting of Language Fieldwork B, Izzat asked her students to

reflect on their learning. In this reflection session, each student had a chance to share with

the class what they had learned from the course. Excerpt 7.32 is an excerpt from Otome's

reflection.

Excerpt 7.32

1 Otom: Umm I - learned a lot of things from this course like others. But I want- can I - umm
can I tell you about what I learned from the - two presentation?

2 Izzat: Yes, yes. [Definitely!

3 Otom: Umm - when I did - presen - tation last term, I-1 thought -1 was thinking - umm
what is the mo- one of - the most uh, most- one of the most important - things to
attract - listeners is - eye contact. I thought. <Izzat: H:mm.> So I - like made a

307
 complete sentence, and - <Izzat: Yeah.> I memorized it. And - present. And but -
when I - forget the word - like I look at - like that ((demonstrates)) - and it's - more
awful like - [Umm.

4 Izzat: [Just-yeah.

5 Otom: Yeah. Doing that. - And I thought - umm when I did - but when I did presen - tation
last week, - <Izzat: Umm.> I focused on - umm how - can -1 make listener to
understand easily? <Izzat: Hmm.> So - umm - and -1 did -1 present like - umm -
like talking like =

6 Izzat: = (x)

7 Otom: Like [(xx)

8 Izzat: [(xx) umm

9 Otom: So I didn't make complete - umm - sentences? <Izzat: Hmm> And I just
concentrate how to - understand- how to make un- listener to understand, uh
listed understand? So - like -1 could eye contact naturally. <Izzat: Umm.> Yeah.
And uh - so about ((smiling)) - that's all I have. <Izzat: Okay.> Yeah through the
presentation. (Class 1, April 5, 2001)

This excerpt seems to summarize Otome's learning across presentations. Initially,

she was primarily concerned to report on her groups' research findings and thinking

processes. In other words, her major focus was on ideational reflection. As such, she tried

to reconstruct her written speech as accurately as possible, depending heavily on her

manuscripts. However, as she listened to her teacher's explanations of the task and

observed others' (especially her classmates') task performances, she became increasingly

aware of the importance of interacting with the audience. To improve her interactional

aspects of her task performance, Otome made up her mind to give her Semester 2

presentation, depending less on the help of written language. Here, it is important to note

that Otome chose to talk about her learning through the oral presentations in the

reflection session above. In other words, her engagement in these tasks seemed to have

been one of her most meaningful learning experiences during her studies at WPU.

308
7.5 Summary of the Chapter

In this chapter, we have examined the learning pathways taken by the four

original key students across tasks and contexts. More specifically, we have studied their

learning about and learning from oral academic presentations over time. Relevant to this

examination was Rogoff s (1990, 1993, 1995) notion of participatory appropriation.

According to Rogoff (1995), "A person who participate in events changes in ways that

makes a difference in subsequent events" (p. 156). An analysis of the data, including their

task-related discourse, interviews, and audio-journal entries, has suggested that the

students changed in many ways through their engagement in their presentations and

related activities. For example, Tomo noticed Izzat's use of a particular L2 expression

(i.e., "be qualified to") in his interaction with her during his group's Semester 1

presentation. He then looked it up in his dictionary and used it in his term paper.

Similarly, Nana noticed that her partner thanked her for informing the audience of her

content. Three months later, she remembered this practice and suggested to her new

partners that they adopt it in their Semester 1 presentation. Thus, both Tomo and Nana, as

active agents, perceived and acted upon particular properties of their environment that

were relevant to them as habitants in that environment (van Lier, 2000). Importantly,

these critical incidents were identified with the help of the students' retrospections.

Another important change had to do with their emergent roles as relative old-

timers. For example, Nana initially did not see why Kiku put a great emphasis on the

performance aspects of the oral presentation task; however, she came to see its value over

time, and took leadership especially in rehearsing her group's Semester 2 presentation,

thus assuming the peer-coaching role performed by Kiku in their Semester 1 project

309
work. As his model presentation and written comments on his classmates' task

performance suggest, Kiku seemed to have developed a theoretical understanding of the

task and ways of speaking and writing as a relative old-timer as he repeatedly observed

his teacher give feedback on his classmates' task performances and his own.

Otome's transformation was even more dramatic. She chose to participate

differently in the oral presentations as her understanding of the task changed over time.

Like many other students, she constructed and reconstructed her understanding of what it

meant to do a "good" oral presentation as she observed others' presentations, prepared

and performed presentations with her partners, and reflected on her own performances by

herself through her audio and written journals, as well as with others in class and at her

group meetings and at the interviews for the present study. In addition, Otome learned to

make intertextual connections between her observations and references including the

course textbook, which was a valued practice in the classroom community (Bloom &

Bailey, 1992).

Furthermore, students seemed to have learned other cultural aspects of task

preparation. For example, from their experience with the poster session, both Kiku and

Tomo learned that it was vital for them to make sure that they knew what they were

required to do by looking at their course outlines. Having observed her partner's task

performance, Otome realized the importance of spending time rehearsing her speech.

From his experience of working with Tomo, Kiku found that setting an agenda at the

beginning of a group meeting was instrumental in staying on task and work efficiently.

310
 Chapter 8

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

8.0 Introduction

Drawing upon sociocultural perspectives, this dissertation explored undergraduate

ESL students' discourse socialization through group project work during their year-long

studies in a study abroad program at a Canadian university. More specifically, by using a

longitudinal, ethnographic case study approach, the study attempted to yield a holistic

understanding of the academic project work in which Japanese university students

engaged both in and out of class time to undertake their public, in-class, oral presentation

tasks as required by their sheltered content course. The study also attempted to uncover

the learning opportunities that this participation made available for the students and the

personal transformations that resulted by providing snapshots of their activities and

records of their voices at different stages. The research did not seek to interpret Japanese

students' behaviors by imposing a predetermined metacultural perspective that might

have essentialized Japanese culture or Canadian culture in ways that were not made

explicit by participants, Keishin staff, or other sources of data.

This qualitative investigation was guided by the following questions:

(1) What is the nature of the institutional and classroom culture in which ESL
undergraduate students perform their oral academic presentations? How is this
task environment organized?

(2) What are some of the features of a valued (or "good") academic oral
presentation as perceived by the teachers and students?

(3) How do students exercise their agency to undertake their presentation tasks?
What are the consequences of these agentive acts?

(4) How do students, through their participation in an academic oral presentation,

become prepared for their subsequent participation in similar or related activities?

311
 The major purpose of this chapter is to synthesize the findings of the study as

presented in the last four chapters. I will first summarize the major findings of the study

and relate them to the theoretical and research literature on learning and socialization. I

will then discuss implications for L2 theory and pedagogy, and suggest possible

directions for future studies.

8.1 Summary and Discussion of Major Findings

8.1.1 Teachers as Organizers of the Task Environment

As we have seen in Chapter 4, one important feature of the Language Fieldwork

course was its careful organization of tasks and projects. With the goal of gradually

initiating her students into the academic culture of WPU and possibly other universities,

the instructor carefully sequenced the projects in such a way that students' choices and

responsibilities increased over time (Rogoff, 1984; van Lier, 1988, 1996, 2004). As

discussed in Chapter 2, this is the principle of handover on which the notion of

scaffolding is based. According to van Lier (2004), handover can take place not only at

the micro-level of social interaction, but also at more macro-levels of task sequencing.

This indeed was clearly demonstrated by Izzat in her teaching practice. For the poster

project, students had a relatively limited choice about their tasks as the medium (i.e.,

poster) and topic (i.e., nonverbal communication) of the task were pre-determined by the

instructor. For the Semester 1 project, students were required to make presentations based

on their volunteer work and relate their observations to topics and issues from lectures

and readings although they were relatively free to decide which aspects of the subject to

focus on and to choose what medium to use for their presentation. For the Semester 2

presentation, they had the freedom to investigate any topic in social science and

312
education in any way deemed appropriate. Hence, it was up to the students to decide how

to collect data and what roles to play in their fieldwork.

Also, at a more micro-level, the tasks within a project were sequenced in such a

way that earlier tasks helped build a context for later ones (Mohan, 1990, 2001; see also

Collins & Green, 1992; Mohan & Marshall Smith, 1992). For example, for the Semester

1 project, students were required for the course to keepfieldjournals, to which the

instructor provided written feedback. As reported in Chapter 5, Kiku, Nana, Koyuki, and

Tomo and their partners made use of these records to undertake their oral presentations--

and some subsequently also listened to their research-related audio-journals to help them

write theirfieldworkjournals and reports. Many other groups likewise reported on their

use of thefieldjournals and comments from the teacher in their preparation of their

presentations. Thus, students' completion of the journal-writing task for the teacher and

the researcher seems to have been instrumental in their undertaking of the oral

presentation task. Importantly, the students' use of the written feedback suggests that the

instructor played a vital role in helping create a ZPD in their learning activities outside

the classroom in which she was not physically present (what Rogoff 1995 calls a "distal"

arrangement). Moreover, the instructor and TA assisted their students with their oral

presentations in many other ways. For instance, Izzat explained the purposes and

requirements of the tasks on a number of occasions, drawing the students' attention to the

course outline. Abraham gave a model presentation and gave the students advice about

how to give a "good" oral presentation. In sum, the instructor considered the goal of the

course to apprentice Keishin students into the academic culture of the university by

providing them with scaffolded experiences engaging in the valued activities of this

313
culture. As such, together with the TA, she attempted to guide her students' participation

in the oral presentations by designing the course based on the principle of handover (van

Lier, 1988, after Bruner, 1983) as well as by providing various kinds of assistance (e.g.,

giving models and explicit explanations of the task).

8.1.2 Features of a Valued Oral Presentation

The examination of the data, including interviews with students and teachers,

their classroom and non-classroom discourse, and the course outlines, has indicated that

the participants considered that a "good" oral presentation had the features captured in

Table 8.1.

Table 8.1: Features of a "Good" Oral Presentation

Features Descriptions
• Critical reflection Go beyond the mere description of experiences and observations.
Explain reasoning.

• Relevance to the Draw explicit connections to topics and issues from the lectures and
course course materials and demonstrate learning from the course.

• References Use relevant, credible information to support ideas.

• New information Present something new to the audience.

• Audience Speak from notes, rather than reading from notes. Interact with the
engagement and audience by making eye contact, asking questions, role-playing, and
involvement so on.

• Performance Speak clearly and confidently to present the self positively. Vary tone
of voice (intonation) and rate of speech.

• Clarity of speech Avoid expressions that might cause confusion.

• Organization Present information in a logical progression. Present an outline of the

talk.

• Presentation aids Use appropriate presentation materials and tools (e.g., OHP,
PowerPoint, handouts, posters, photographs, drawings, etc.).

• Transitions between Make smooth transitions between speakers (e.g., introduce the next
speakers speaker and acknowledge the previous speaking for the introduction).

314
 • Time management Make effective use of the allocated time. Be ready to change plans
(e.g., cut some parts) if necessary.

By the end of the academic year, the information presented in Table 8.1 seemed to

have become part of the "common knowledge" (Edwards & Mercer, 1987) of the

Language Fieldwork community; however, not all participants valued these features to

the same degree (see Morita, 2000, for a similar finding). For example, the instructor

often emphasized in class the importance of presentations, including critical reflection,

relevance to the course, and speaking (as opposed to reading) delivery. Many students

commented on the importance of presenting something new to the audience in a unique

fashion to draw and engage their attention as well as on the need to speak clearly and

loudly to get across their points to the audience. Interestingly, Izzat commented in her

reflective interview that she was pleasantly surprised to see some groups make creative

and effective use of role playing to communicate their messages, suggesting students'

contribution to the teacher's perception of a "good" oral presentation.

8.1.3 Student Agency and Collaboration in Task Preparation and Performance

The present study has shown that to accomplish their presentation tasks, students

made use of a variety of tools and resources, including L1/L2 oral discourse and L2

written texts (e.g., the course outline, field journals, textbooks), electronic bilingual

dictionaries, the PowerPoint Program, each other's ideas and knowledge, and even the

presence of the researcher. This indicates the interdependence of spoken and written

language in the groups' task preparation. Morita (2000) argues that since the oral

presentations observed in her study were based on written material, they can be

considered as literacy events or "occasions in which written language is integral to the

nature of the participants' interactions and their interpretive processes and strategies"

315
(Heath, 1986, p. 98). A similar argument can be made about the task-preparatory

activities as well as the actual presentation observed in the present study since the key

students and their partners made use of various written texts as discussed above. Their

task preparation can thus be viewed as a series of speech and literacy events in which

they jointly constructed the language, content, and performance of their presentation.

Such a view seems to provide an important window on the complex nature of the

interrelationships between spoken and written language in classroom and non-classroom

task-related interactions, but "has yet to be more than minimally reflected" in applied

linguistics research (Poole, 2002, p. 77).

Most groups used Japanese as a major tool for their group discussion (cfi, Futaba,

1994). This seems natural given that they all speak Japanese as an LI. As some previous

studies (e.g., Duff, 2001; Liang, 1999) have shown, even in class time, students often opt

to use their LI when they all speak the same first language and may also be encouraged

to do so by teachers. This may be even more likely when same-Ll students work together

out of the classroom in the absence of the teacher. In fact, most of the student participants

in the present study (23 pairs or groups out of 25 for Semester 1 tasks) reported that they

used Japanese in their group meetings for similar reasons to those given by Liang's

Chinese participants. For example, many students said that they would "feel weird" about

speaking English to their peers knowing that they also speak Japanese. Likewise, Otome

and Ringo both commented that they could not imagine speaking to each other in English

when working out of class time on their projects because they did not see it as part of

their relationship. Ringo said, "We have been friends long (five months) before we came

to Canada and have always spoken to each other in Japanese especially when there are

316
only two of us. For us, speaking English is just out of the question" [original in Japanese]

(interview, April 18, 2001). Hence, their choice of language was shaped by their

established relationship and shared history of communication.

Another major reason for students' use of L I was that under tremendous time

pressure, they wanted to move group work forward as efficiently as possible and

accomplish tasks with less frustration and in a cognitively more complex manner than

they would if they spoke only English. While there was a tacit agreement about use of L I

among members of most groups, a few groups seem to have negotiated which language

to use for their group meetings.

Like other groups, Kiku and Nana's group and Koyuki and Tomo's group used

Japanese in all phases of their task preparation. In the first several hours of the

preparation, they negotiated task definitions and shared their field experiences to find

common themes, looking at the course outline and their own field journals with the

teacher's comments, respectively. In other words, they negotiated the definitions of the

tasks, teacher expectations, and possible content of their speech primarily in their L I to

develop a shared understanding of the task and build common ground for subsequent

group activities. Here, one may wonder why they spent so much time in this phase of

their preparation. One possible explanation is that unlike other tasks used in many

previous studies (see, for example, Futaba, 1994; Swain & Lapkin, 2000), the

presentation tasks examined in the present study did not provide the students with pre-

made texts, written passages, or pictures. For instance, as each student did at least ten

hours of fieldwork for the Semester 1 presentation, a group of three had at least thirty

hours of experience to make sense of. As well, the tasks seemed to be cognitively more

317
demanding since they required students to go beyond mere descriptions of their field

experiences and observations and relate them to the academic content of the course.

After hours of experience sharing and meaning negotiation, Kiku and Nana's and

Koyuki and Tomo's groups started to make a PowerPoint document and talked about the

language of their presentation. This is congruent with Swain and Lapkin's (2000) view

that a key to focus-on-form is a writing component (see also Wells, 1999a, 2000). In a

similar vein, Scribner (1997) states:

Writing separates our language from us and sets it in the outer world, making it
available for inspection and contemplation by its creator as well as by others. In
this way language itself becomes an object upon which we work, not merely an
instrumentality through which we work to gain other (non-language) ends. (p.
166)

Furthermore, Mercer, Philips, and Somekh (1991) state with respect to the

potential values of the computer as an educational resource that "the screen presentation

facilitates a sharing of information and provides a source of contextual reference for

shared knowledge and activity in a way that written texts cannot" (cited in Lockwood,
78

2001, p. 134). Thus, the PowerPoint program seems to have served as a tool for

establishing and sustaining a shared focus among the students and made available their

L2 production for joint inspection and contemplation by themselves. The importance of

writing is also evidenced by the collaborative dialogue that Koyuki had with her partners

about how to make a conditional using the word however. In that example, the students

communicated primarily through LI oral discourse to solve the problem; however,

without recourse to a written text, they failed to create intersubjectivity, thus leaving

Koyuki's question unsolved. According to Wells (1999a), it is in this type of situation in

78
Here, Mercer et al. (1991) apparently use the term written text to refer to writing on paper as opposed to
computer-assisted writing. However, I use the term to refer to both.

318
which writing can provide "such a powerful mediating technology, enabling the group as

well as the individual writer to make real progress in knowledge building" (p. 151). In

other words, a written text can serve as the "improvable object" that both gives the focus

for the knowledge-building dialogue and concretizes the progress being made (Wells,

1999a, 2000).

As research reports, the oral presentations required students to critically reflect on

their fieldwork. Major sub-activities included explaining the rationale for the study,

displaying newly gained information and knowledge, reporting participants' voices, and

connecting theory to practice. During these processes, students made various efforts to

self-regulate their performance, including the use of notes (both individual and group),

self-repetition, and the use of private speech. For example, Kiku and Nana's group used

group notes that included not only the outline of the talk, but also self-addressed

utterances to remind themselves of what to pay attention to.

Also, as we have seen mainly in Chapter 6, students collaborated in a variety of

ways in their actual presentations. For one thing, many students made use of transitions to

hand over the floor to their peers scheduled to speak next. The teacher's and students'

comments suggest that these transitions help to not only organize the presentations, but

also demonstrate to the audience that they actually collaborated. In addition to this overt

collaboration, some groups employed LI backstage talk. Interestingly, Kiku made use of

this talk to covertly give his group members advice on their performance. Otome and

Ringo covertly reconfirmed their task procedure in Japanese immediately before they

started their poster presentation (Chapter 7). These data provide more evidence of how

use of LI assists students' accomplishment of L2 tasks. Another type of collaboration

319
was the joint production of utterances. When a member of a presenting group had

difficulty producing L2 utterances, other members sometimes provided assistance, thus

jointly constructing the speech.

In their presentations, students employed a variety of verbal and behavioral

strategies to involve their audience and organize their talk. Their use of involvement

strategies included the use of small talk, questions directed toward the audience, role-

playing, demonstration, and story reading, many of which were accompanied by the use

of interactive resources such as imperatives and interrogatives that helped create

contingency. To organize their talk, more groups gave a verbal and/or written outline at

the beginning of their presentation in Semester 2 than in Semester 1. Furthermore, some

students referred to previous events, trying to build on the common ground that their

audience might have shared with them. Importantly, such use of intertextuality was often

made by the teacher in her teaching, and thus seemed to be a valued discursive practice of

the classroom community.

Furthermore, the analysis of the data has shown that the students' oral

presentations were not only end products of group project work, but also jointly

constructed processes of negotiation and meaning making between the presenters and

audience members. For instance, the instructor, as a major socializing agent, played a

variety of roles both during and after the presentations. These included a negotiator of

meaning, a provider of appropriate language and explanations, and a source of humor.

Student-members of the audience also contributed to the task performance. Some

members asked the presenters questions and gave them comments while others

participated less overtly by smiling, laughing, looking up unknown words in their

320
dictionaries, and responding to the presenters in their minds. Data analysis has suggested

that students' questions might have served as models for their peers in learning both how

to and how not to respond to classmates' presentations.

8.1.4 Student Appropriation and Transformation

In Chapter 7, we examined the learning pathways taken by the four original key

students across tasks and contexts by framing them in terms of the notion of participatory

appropriation (Rogoff, 1993, 1995, 2003). This examination has yielded some principal

findings. The first has to do with contingency across contexts. For example, the analysis

of the data has shown how Tomo made use of his cognitive uptakefromhis Semester 1

presentation for his written report. He noticed Izzat's use of a particular L2 expression

(i.e., "be qualified to") in his interaction with her during his group presentation. He later

consulted his dictionary for the usage of the expression and used it in his term paper.

Similarly, Nana noticed that her partner thanked her for informing the audience of her

content. Still remembering this three months later, she suggested to Kiku and Shingo that

they adopt it in their Semester 1 presentation, and the students agreed that this would be a

good way to avoid "awkward" silence between turns. Thus, both Tomo and Nana, as

active agents, acted upon linguistic properties of their environment that they had

perceived (van Lier, 1997, 2000), suggesting a high degree of attentiveness to their

interlocutors' turns (van Lier, 1992, 1996). However, in this case, contingency was

realized not within the interaction, but across contexts since neither of the students'

actions took place immediately after their perceptions of the linguistic features.

According to Bakhtin (1986),

an utterance is not always followed immediately by an articulated response. An

actively responsive understanding of what is heard.. .can remain, for the time

321
 being, a silent responsive understanding... but this is, so to speak, responsive
understanding with a delayed reaction. Sooner or later what is heard and actively
understood will find its response in the subsequent speech or behavior of the
listener (pp. 68-69).

In this view, both Tomo's and Nana's actions can be seen as delayed reactions that

represented their responsive understanding of previously heard utterances. It then 79

follows that researchers may need to trace participants' task-related actions and

interactions across contexts.

Secondly, students' understanding of and participation in the oral presentations

changed over time. For instance, Nana initially did not see why Kiku put a great

emphasis on the performance aspects of the oral presentation task; however, she came to

see its value over time, and took leadership especially in rehearsing her group's Semester

2 presentation, thus assuming the peer-coaching role performed by Kiku in their Semester

1 project work. As his model presentation and written comments on his classmates' task

performance suggest, Kiku seemed to have developed a theoretical understanding of the

task and ways of speaking and writing as a relative old-timer, based on repeated

observations of his teacher's feedback on his classmates' task performances and his own.

Otome chose to participate differently in oral presentations as her understanding

of the task changed over time. Like many other students, she constructed and

reconstructed her understanding of what it meant to do a "good" oral presentation as she

observed others' task performances, prepared and performed presentations with her

partners, and reflected on her own performances on a number of occasions. In her final

presentation, she was less dependent upon written language and demonstrated a higher

degree of self-regulation. However, this is not to say that Otome would not give speech

79
A similar argument can be made about Yoshino's self-correction reported in Chapter 6.

322
from memory or manuscripts again. In fact, as the principle of continuing access

(Frawley & Lantolf, 1985) suggests, she might use her old strategies when faced with a

more challenging presentation task even in the same context or if she had another chance

to give the same presentation in a different context. She had simply expanded her

repertoire of delivery methods. Therefore, the ultimate challenge for her and other

presenters, for that matter, would be to select and use a delivery method that is deemed

most appropriate to the context in which they are to give a talk. In addition, Otome

learned to make intertextual connections between her observations and references

including the course textbook, which was one of the socioculturally valued practices of

the classroom community. Otome's learning through her repeated engagement involved

learning to make intertextual connections between her observations and references,

understanding what the valued methods are for orally presenting her experiences, ideas

and herself, and understanding what counts as credible sources of information (see

Bloom & Bailey, 1992, for a relevant discussion).

These findings indicate that while all the students learned from their observation

of and participation in oral presentations, they benefited differently from their respective

experiences. Relevant to this point is Gibson's (1979) notion of affordance. According to

van Lier (2000), an affordance refers to "a particular property of the environment that is

relevant~for good or for ill—to an active, perceiving organism in that environment" (p.

252); as such, what becomes an affordance depends on what each agent does, what she

desires, what is useful and relevant for her (van Lier, 2000). Following this view, it can

be argued that different students, as active agents, perceived, acted upon, and interacted

with different properties of their environment relevant to them.

323
8.2 M a j o r Theoretical Contributions

The present study offers important contributions to the theories of L2 learning and

socialization. As we have seen in Chapters 1 and 2, many task-based studies to date have

isolated different demands of tasks to examine the L2 use and cognitive processing in

which individuals engaged as they performed different tasks under different conditions.

While these studies have contributed greatly to our knowledge about the microprocesses

of L2 users' discourse within tasks, they have not had much to say about the

macroprocesses weaving together these tasks (Mohan & Marshall Smith, 1992). To yield

a holistic understanding of Keishin students' L2 academic discourse socialization through

group project work, I adopted Rogoff s (1995, 1998, 2003) three-plane analysis of

activity as a major conceptual framework in the present study. As discussed in Chapter 2,

Rogoff views learning and development as a dynamic process of changing participation

in the sociocultural activities of a given community. This dissertation has documented the

process of student participation in the literacy event of project development and project

presentation, thus going beyond the micro-level of a brief task (the focus of many

previous task-based studies). Also, Rogoff suggests that such participation takes places

on three planes that are inseparable: personal, interpersonal, and community. The

personal plane analysis (mainly reported in Chapter 7) allowed the present study to trace

learning pathways taken across presentation tasks and related events by some of the key

students; the interpersonal plane analysis (mainly reported in Chapters 5 & 6) allowed the

study to focus on the interpersonal collaboration among different participants in the

Keishin program; and the community plane analysis (reported mainly in Chapter 4) shed

useful light on the beliefs, values, and practices of the focal classroom community. These

324
analyses together allowed us to produce rich, multi-layered accounts of students' learning

and socialization through their oral academic tasks as sociohistorically situated amidst

classroom and non-classroom discourse and other activities that constituted the ecology

of the community. Nothing along this line has previously been attempted in such detail.

Moreover, the present study has two important implications for the theory of

language socialization. Thefirsthas to do with the ecology of tasks. As discussed earlier,

language socialization is claimed to take place through repeated experiences in assuming

various social roles in recurrent activities that promote particular language use and

communicative behaviors associated with those roles. As such, many previous studies

have examined newcomers' repeated engagement in particular activities such as oral

presentations. Undoubtedly, such participation was an important locus for the discourse

socialization of the students in the present study (Chapter 7); however, my analysis of

contingency and intertextuality has shown that their participation in oral presentations

was also shaped by their previous and future activities, including observations of model

task performance and writing of journals and research reports. To borrow Rogoff s

(1995) words, "Any event in the present is an extension of previous events and is directed

toward goals that have not yet been accomplished. As such, the present extends through

the past and future and cannot be separated from them" (p. 155). Thus, studies of

language socialization would benefit from an ecological perspective that considers the

relationships between tasks and between student participation in one activity and in

another.

Secondly, while many socialization accounts have tended to equate learning and

development with the transmissions of and adaptation to the values and practices of a

325
target community (see Packer, 2001; Schegloff, Ochs, & Thompson, 1996), the personal

and interpersonal plane analyses of the present study have shown how students both

individually and jointly shaped their activities by making decisions and taking actions

with respect to their tasks, or, conversely, by not engaging with particular components of

their tasks, thus highlighting the selective nature of student agency in language

socialization (see also Duff, 2002b; Morita, 2002). Furthermore, based on this finding,

one could call into question the metaphor of apprenticeship proposed by Lave and

Wenger (1991) if one sees this process as apprentices' complete and precise reproduction

of their masters' models. Apprentices in traditional fields such as tailoring are

presumably expected to perform as their masters expect them to, and not much variation

is tolerated in this participation or in the ultimate outcome of the activities. The goal is

for the apprentices to achieve the status of masters (or competent practioners), emulating

the skills of their masters, not transforming past practices into new ones (J. P. Lantolf,

personal communication, September 15, 2004). In contrast, while guided by their

teachers, students in the present study exercised their agency in a variety of ways to

undertake their tasks, and this variation in participation and outcomes was in fact

encouraged by their teacher. This observation suggests that students' activities in

educational settings like the present one may be more dynamic and unpredictable than

those of apprentices in other more traditional technical or manual work settings. The

issue of whether apprenticeship has historically been a rigid reproduction of masters'

skills or is, as this study has documented in one contemporary setting, a more creative

and dynamic process of negotiation and transformation requires further empirical

investigation.

326
8.3 Implications for Pedagogy

This study offers several main implications for L2 pedagogy. Thefirsthas to do

with students' use of LI and L2. Data have shown that students used Japanese especially

in early phases of their task preparation where they shared experiences and negotiated the

content of their presentations. This suggests that the LI might have served as a major tool

for communication and joint thinking about the L2 task. For this reason, I believe, like

Swain and Lapkin (2000), that students should not, in general, be prohibited from using

their L1 even in classrooms. However, it would be ideal that given their goals to take

non-sheltered courses with English-speaking peers, students expand their linguistic

repertoire to learn to carry out discussions in English since doing group project work

would probably mean working with peers of diverse cultural backgrounds, which would

in turn require them to conduct negotiations and make a variety of decisions about their

tasks and projects in English (see also Heath, 1998). As Excerpt 5.1 suggests, many

students tended to speak more English in class than they did outside of class. Thus, it

would seem beneficial to provide students with an opportunity to work on their projects

in class time on a regular basis even for a brief period of time as well as an opportunity to

discuss as a class both merits and demerits of using the LI and L2, although it would still

be up to the students to choose which language to use, even in classrooms.

The second implication relates to students' task preparation. As reported earlier,

not all groups worked as collaboratively and closely as Kiku and Nana's and Koyuki and

Tomo's groups to prepare for their presentations. According to Chang-Wells and Wells

(1994), "the strategies necessary for working collaboratively in a group, do not emerge

spontaneously" (p. 73). At the same time, as the stories of Ichiro's and Rei's groups

327
clearly indicate, students' group processes seemed to be shaped by the choices that they

made as active agents with unique personal histories and beliefs as well as by the socio-

educational context in which they were situated. However, as mentioned earlier, the

findings of the present study point to the benefits of preparation for the oral presentation

task. Because the oral presentations assigned to the students in the present study were

intended to be group tasks rather than individual tasks, it seemed vital for members of a

group to spend considerable time working together to jointly construct and reconstruct

their task program if they wish to satisfy both their audience (i.e., teachers and peers) and

themselves and to make the most out of the task.

Here, one might wonder how students could be encouraged to undertake such

group tasks in the ways that Kiku and Nana's and Koyuki and Tomo's groups did, so that

student learning gets maximum benefit. For one thing, teachers could give students

opportunities to discuss what they appreciated about their classmates' task performance

and their own, including language, content, and delivery, and to share with other groups

how they worked together to accomplish their task. Through such inter-group experience

sharing and reflective discussions, students may be able to learn from each other's

experiences and may thus be in a better position to make informed choices for their future

presentations.

Another way, which is perhaps specific to the present research context, is to give

students a chance to make a group presentation with more experienced students. As

reported in Chapters 4, 5, and 7, Keishin students were required to attend a series of pre-

departure orientation sessions that were organized by the program director, a student

advisor, and voluntary members of the previous group. During this orientation, students

328
had opportunities to observe a model presentation given by their senpai or seniors, to

investigate different aspects of university life in Canada in groups, and make an oral

presentation. If there are a sufficient number of volunteers from the previous group, it

might be beneficial to assign a "senior" to each presentation group. By working side by

side with a more experienced member, students may be in a better position to learn the

valued practices of the community associated with oral presentations.

A third implication concerns the nature of students' language use during

presentations. As documented in Chapter 5 and earlier in this chapter, one feature of a

valued presentation in the Keishin classroom community was the avoidance of difficult

L2 expressions. One may argue that, although facilitating the audience's comprehension,

this practice might have prevented student members of the audience from being exposed

to and thus learning more complex language (e.g., selfish vs. self-centered). What could

be done to deal with this trade-off? One way would be to encourage students to approach

their oral presentations as peer-teaching tasks (see Ellis, 2003) in which they could teach

their peers language deemed new or difficult in the context of their presentations by

providing synonyms, paraphrases, and so on. However, learning to speak plainly is not

necessarily less valuable than peer-teaching about language forms; rather, as van Lier and

Matsuo's (2000) study suggests, these activities would afford different types of learning

opportunities to students, both as presenters and audience members. Thus, it is up to

teachers to decide if and when to foreground linguistic or metalinguistic aspects of tasks

in the context of oral presentations and other instructional activities, depending on their

overall objectives.

329
 A fourth implication has to do students' use of intertextuality. The analysis of the

data showed that many students made a variety of links to other texts and events, such as

their textbooks, participants' interviews, and previous classroom events. However, only a

few groups referred to other groups' presentations despite the fact that several groups

talked about similar topics. For example, for the Semester 1 project, there were several

groups who presented on their experience at a travel agency, but they never referred to

each other's talk. This may be because many students were concerned about the

"freshness" of information. In fact, many of these groups expressed their desire to give

their presentations before the others because they were afraid that there might be nothing

important and interesting left for them to say (see also Excerpt 6.46). However, if

learning involves understanding the new in terms of the old (van Lier, 1996), then

making intertextual links to ideas and issues from other presentations would be just as

valuable as referring to the textbook content. Perhaps teachers could explain this and

encourage students to respond to and act on what their classmates have said in their

presentations. In this case, the teacher's job would be to help create contingency across

presentations.

A fifth implication concerns presenters' awareness of their own language. This

study has shown that by thinking together, the students were able to solve problems

sometimes, but at other times, problems remained unsolved or even unnoticed. Swain

(1998; see also Swain & Lapkin, 1998) has argued, "Teachers' availability during

collaborative activities and their attention to the accuracy of the 'final' product

subsequent to the completion of collaborative activities are potentially critical aspects of

student learning" (p. 80). However, in the present case, since students' group work

330
occurred mainly outside the classroom, the teacher could not have been expected to make

herself available. What, then, can be done to promote students' language awareness? One

possible way to encourage students' focus-on-form would be to have them transcribe part

of their own presentations or at least review videos of themselves (see also Morita, 2000)

and discuss their own language production before they write their final papers. In fact, all

of the key students commented that they had found reviewing their own task performance

and verifying the transcripts while listening to their audio-recorded performance to be

useful since these activities helped them notice their own problems, both verbal and

nonverbal. Interestingly, while acknowledging the value of the former activity, especially

in reflecting on their use of non-verbal resources, some students said that they had found

the latter to be more helpful in identifying their grammatical and phonological problems

because they were able to focus more attention on what they heard without being

distracted by visual information.

Moreover, giving students a chance to listen to their audio-recorded performance

or to review their video-recorded performance would have another benefit. As reported in

Chapter 4, in Language Fieldwork, the oral presentation was intended to be an end

product and, simultaneously, a step toward the written research report. As such, Izzat

often encouraged her students to incorporate her comments into their final papers

(Chapter 5). However, several students, including Koyuki, Otome, Ringo, and Sakura,

said that standing in front of the entire class, they were very nervous and not sure if they

had fully understood some of their teacher's post-task comments. In fact, Ringo checked

with me her understanding of what Izzat had said about her group's Semester 1

presentation so that she could make use of the feedback in writing her term paper. Use of

331
audio- and video-recording could offer students a second chance to listen to their

audience's feedback and reactions as well as their own task performance.

8.4 Directions for Future Research

The present study investigated the activities of a particular group of students (i.e.,

Japanese undergraduate students) related to the oral presentation tasks. Therefore, studies

with other groups of students doing similar types of tasks would provide us with further

insights about L2 academic discourse socialization through oral presentations.

Ethnographic case studies focusing on other types of tasks, including the co-authoring of

a research report would make a valuable contribution to the literature on L2 learning and

socialization. These data include audio and video-recorded group meetings, on-line

interactions (i.e., email and instant messages), and field notes as well as drafts.

Furthermore, as discussed earlier, the oral presentation tasks examined in the present

study indeed required not only speaking and listening skills, but also a variety of

literacies including reading, writing, and computer skills. However, many task-based L2

studies to date have focused on oral language production without paying much attention

to links to literacy. Future studies could examine more closely how one's participation in

oral activities might contribute to one's subsequent participation in writing/reading

activities.

In addition, the present study only examined students' participation in one course;

however, the students were simultaneously taking other courses that required oral

presentations. My data have shown that some students carried over practices that they

learned from another course to the Language Fieldwork and, in some cases, received

negative comments from their audience. For example, in their Semester 1 presentation,

332
Haru and Koki used handwritten transparencies. Recall that both Izzat and Abraham

made it a custom to use computer-printed transparencies in their lessons (see Chapter 4).

Haru said at the beginning of their talk that they regretted not having prepared computer-

printed transparencies since they did not have enough time. Smiling, she added that this

was what the teacher of another course did in her teaching. This remark provoked
80

laughter and smiles in the audience including the instructor; however, several students

commented at their email interviews that they would not do it themselves because

handwritten transparencies were hard to read and did not look nice. Carrying over the

writing practice of another classroom community, coupled with the former student's

remark, was not particularly well received since the approach selected was perceived to

be inferior to the ones being used in this course.

Nana was observed to share a similar experience with her partners for Semester 1

presentation. As we have seen in Chapters 5 and 6, students made use of repetition to

stress their main points in their presentations. At one of their group meetings, Nana told

her partners about her presentation for another course in which she had been told by the

teacher that she sounded repetitive when she tried to repeat to emphasize her main points.

These data suggest that there is a need to examine more closely how students' learning of

tasks in one course may facilitate or hinder their learning of similar tasks in another

course. Another important line of future research would be to examine how what students

learned about oral presentations during their studies in their study-abroad contexts might

shape their participation in similar activities in their home countries (e.g., Japan). Case

studies examining students' preparation for and performance of particular tasks across

80
This can be taken as an agentive act that Haru performed to legitimatize her group's action which might
otherwise be perceived to be "illegitimate" in the classroom culture.

333
courses and contexts would help us better understand the complex relationships among

student agency, learning, and the classroom environments (see Morita, 2002, for an

example).

What is more, most previous studies on contingency have focused primarily on

synchronous, face-to-face communication (see Kinginger, 1994, for an examination of

contingency in asynchronous written communication). However, as the present study has

shown, students can act upon their cognitive uptake from interactions that they have

previously had with their teachers and partners (Chapters 5 & 7), suggesting that their

learning might have been produced as a result of cumulative effects of a number of

activities and interactions in which they participate (van Lier, 1988; see also Mercer,

2000), rather than from their participation in one specific event or two. Such learning

processes may not be directly observable or easily identifiable because they can take

place in the absence of the researcher and/or privately as inner dialogues (Volosinov,

1973; see also Linell, 1998; Vygotsky, 1987). For this reason, future studies should

continue to take a behind-the-scenes look at contingency across tasks and contexts by

using a variety of methods including detailed analysis of discourse, interviews, and

journal entries that would together allow for a consideration of both etic and emic

perspectives.

Finally, the present study has documented how the instructor as a socializing

agent organized the task environment in order to scaffold her students' participation.

Another important line of future research, as van Lier (1988) suggests, is to continue to

closely examine the ways in which tasks and classroom activities are structured based on

the principle of handover. As Ellis (2000, 2003) suggests, whereas psycholinguistic task-

334
based L2 studies can contribute to the planning aspects of curriculum, sociocultural

studies like the present one can contribute to the improvising (or implementing) aspects

of the curriculum (van Lier, 1991, 1996). The latter type of research can enrich our

understanding of L2 learning and socialization by continuing to examine the relationship

between task ecology (Mohan, 1990, 2001) and students' guided participation (Rogoff,

1990, 1993, 1995).

8.5 Final Remarks

To conclude, I would like to state that conducting this study has made a great

contribution to my growth as an L2 researcher and teacher. I hope that despite the small

number of participants involved and the unique nature of the research context (i.e., a

sheltered content course for Japanese undergraduate students), the present case study

contributes meaningfully to our understanding of L2 socialization through group project

work by providing for readers a rich, participant-informed description of the complex

interactions among students, their teachers, their peers, their tasks, and the wider

academic environment in which they were all embedded. It is these dynamic interactions

that shape students' learning (van Lier, 1988, 2000) and which therefore merit more

research attention. My hope is that the present study helps pave the way for further

understanding of L2 students' learning and socialization in socio-educational contexts.

335
 REFERENCES

Adamson, H. D. (1993). Academic competence: Theory and classroom practice:

Preparing ESL students for content courses. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1987). Membership roles in field research. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Ahearn, L. M. (2001a). Agency. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Key terms in language and culture

(pp. 7-10). Maiden, MA: Blackwell.

Ahearn, L. M. (2001b). Language and agency. Annual Review ofAnthropology, 30, 109-

137.

Allwright, D. (1984). Why don't learners learn what teachers teach: The interaction

hypothesis. In D. M. Singleton & D. Little (Eds.), Language learning in formal

and informal context (pp. 3-18). Dublin: IRAAL.

Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Anton, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive functions of LI collaborative

interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 314-

342.

Atkinson, J. M. (1984). Our master's voices: The language and body language of

politics. London: Methuen.

Atkinson, D., & Ramanathan, V. (1995). Cultures of writing: An ethnographic

comparison of LI and L2 university writing/language programs. TESOL

Quarterly, 29, 539-568.

336
Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Bailey, K. M., & Nunan, D. (1996). Introduction. In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.),

Voices from the language classroom (pp. 1-10). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (M. Holquist, Ed. & C. Emerson &

M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work

published 1975)

Bakhtin, M. W. (1984). Problems ofDostoevsky's poetics. Manchester, UK: Manchester

University Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other later essays (C. Emerson & M.

Holquist, Eds. & V. W. McGee, Trans.). University of Texas Press. (Original

work published 1979)

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman

and Company.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of

Psychology, 52, 1-26.

Barkhuizen, G. P. (1998). Discovering learning's perceptions of ESL classroom

teaching/learning activities in a South African context. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 85-

108.

Barton, D. (1994). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language. Oxford:

Blackwell.

337
Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one

community. London: Routledge.

Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R.

Ivanic (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7-15).

London: Routledge.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: A revolutionary approach to man's

understanding of himself New York: Ballantine.

Bauman, R. (1977). Verbal art as performance. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Bauman, R. (1986). Story, performance, and event: Contextual studies of oral narrative.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bayley, R., & Schecter, S. R. (Eds.). (2003). Language socialization in bilingual and

multilingual societies. Clevedon, Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Beckett, G. H. (1999). Project-based instruction in a Canadian secondary school's ESL

classes: Goals and evaluations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Beckett, G. H. (2002). Teacher and student evaluations of project-based instruction.

TESL Canada Journal, 19, 52-66.

Beebe, S. A., & Beebe, S. J. (2000). Public speaking: An audience-centered approach

(4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Beglar, D., & Hunt, A. (2002). Implementing task-based language teaching. In J. C.

Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An

anthology of current practice (pp. 96-106). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

338
Bell, J. (2000). Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers in

education and social science (3rd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Berk, L.E. (1992). Children's private speech: An overview of theory and the status of

research. In R. M. Diaz & L. E. Berk (Eds.), Private speech: From social

interaction to self-regulation (pp. 17-53). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bernstein, B. (1972). A sociolinguistic approach to socialization, with some reference to

educability. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp.

465-497). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Billingham, J. (2003). Giving presentations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Block, D. (1994). A day in the life of a class: Teacher/learner perceptions of task purpose

conflict. System, 22, 473-486.

Block, D. (1996). A window on the classroom: Classroom events viewed from different

angles. In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom:

Qualitative research in second language education (pp. 168-194). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Block, D. (2000). Problematizing interview data: Voices in the mind's machine? TESOL

Quarterly, 34, 757-763.

Bloom, L. (1993). Transcription and coding for child language research: The parts are

more than the whole. In J. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data:

Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 149-166). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bloome, D., & Bailey, F. M. (1992). Studying language and literacy through events,

particularity, and intertextuality. In R. Beach, J. L. Green, M. L. Kamil, & T.

339
 Shanahan (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on literacy research (pp. 181-

210). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Bloome, D., & Egan-Roberson, A. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality in

classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 304-333.

Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. (1996). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early

childhood education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bogdan, R. C , & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An

introduction theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Braten, S. (1992). The virtual other in infants' minds and social feeling. In A. H. Wold

(Ed.), The dialogical alternative: Toward a theory of language and mind (pp. 77-

97). Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

Breen, M. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In C. N. Candlin & D. F. Murphy

(Eds.), Language learning tasks (pp. 23-46). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

International.

Breen, M. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R. K. Johnson

(Ed.), Second language curriculum (pp. 187-206). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Bromley, D. B. (1986). The case-study method in psychology and related disciplines.

New York: Wiley.

Broner, M. A. (2000). Impact of interlocutor and task on first and second language use in

a Spanish immersion program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

Minnesota, Twin Cities.

340
Brooks, F., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign

language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77, 262-21A.

Brooks, F., Donato, R., & McGlone, J. V. (1997). When are they going to say "It" right?:

Understanding learner talk during pair-work activity. Foreign Language Annals,

30, 524-541.

Brown, A., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. G.

(1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed

cognition: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 188-228).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, G., Anderson, A., Shillcock, R., & Yule, G. (1984). Teaching talk: Strategies for

production and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Brown, J. D. (1988). Understanding research in second language learning. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Brown, J. D., & Yamashita, S. O. (1995). English language entrance examinations at

Japanese universities: 1993 and 1994. In J. D. Brown & S. O. Yamashita (Eds.),

Language testing in Japan (pp. 86-100). Tokyo: The Japan Association for

Language Teaching.

Bruner, J. (1983). Child's talk: Learning to use language. New York: W. W. Norton &

Company.

341
Bruner, J. (1985). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. In J.V. Wertsch

(Ed.), Culture, communication and cognition (pp. 21-34). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R. R. (1998). Cognitive psychology and

instruction (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Butler, D. (2000). Class lecture, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., & Yallop, C. (2000). Using functional

grammar: An explorer's guide. Sydney: Macquarie University.

By gate, M. (1987). Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bygate, M. (1994). Adjusting the focus: Teacher roles in task-based learning of grammar.

In M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn & E. Williams (Eds.), Grammar and the language

teacher (pp. 237-259). Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, UK: Prentice Hall

International.

Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of

learners. In J. Wills & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenges and change in language

teaching (pp. 136-146). Oxford: Heinemann.

Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language.

In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks:

Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23-48). Harlow, Essex, UK:

Pearson Education.

Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (2001). Researching pedagogical tasks:

Second language learning, teaching and testing. Essex, UK: Pearson Education.

342
Cain, C. (n.d.). Becoming a non-drinking alcoholic: A case study in identity acquisition.

Unpublished manuscript, the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Campbell, C. (1996). Socializing with the teachers and prior language learning

experience: A diary study. In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from

language classroom: Qualitative research in second language education (pp.

201-223). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Candlin, C , & Murphy, D. (1987). Language learning tasks. Lancaster Practical Papers

in English Language Education. Vol. 7. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

International.

Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cazden, C. B. (1992). Whole language plus: Essays and literacy in the United States and

New Zealand. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cazden, C. (1993). Vygotsky, Hymes, and Bakhtin: From word to utterance and voice. In

E. A. Forma, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning:

Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 197-212). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd

ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1983). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL

teacher's course. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL

teacher's course (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

343
Change-Wells, G. L. M., & Wells, G. (1994). Dynamics of discourse: Literacy and the

construction of knowledge. In E. Forman, N. Minick, & C. Addison Stone (Eds.),

Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 58-

90). New York: Oxford University Press.

Chaudron, C. (1986). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Clancy, P. M. (1986). The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese. In B.

Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures (pp. 213-

250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clark, H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.).

London: Routledge.

Cole, M. (1994). A conception of culture for a communication theory of mind. In D. R.

Vocate (Ed.), Intrapersonal communication: Different voices, different minds (pp.

77-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once andfuture discipline. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Collerson, J. (1994). English grammar: A functional approach. Newtown, Australia.

Primary English Teaching Association.

Collins, T. G. (2001). (Re)considering LI use in adult ESL classrooms: Effects on learner

motivation. In G. Brauer (Ed.), Pedagogy of language learning in higher

education: An introduction (pp. 61-75). Westport, CT: Ablex.

344
Collins, E., & Green, J. L. (1992). Learning in classroom settings: Making or breaking a

culture. In H. H. Marshall (Ed.), Redefining student learning: Roots of

educational change (pp. 59-85). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Cook, V. (2001). Use of the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language

Review, 57, 402-423.

Cooper, M. (1990). The answers are not in the back of the book: Developing discourse

practices infirstyear English. In R. Beach & S. Hynds (Eds.), Developing

discourse practices in adolescence and adulthood (pp. 65-90). Norwood, NJ:

Ablex.

Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of an SLA

task from an activity theory perspective. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel, (Eds.),

Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173-193). Norwood,

NJ: Ablex.

Crago, M. B. (1992). The sociocultural interface of communicative interaction and L2

acquisition: An Inuit example. TESOL Quarterly, 23,487-506.

Crandall, J. (2000). The role of the university in preparing teachers for a linguistically

diverse society. In J. W. Rosenthall (Ed.), Handbook of undergraduate second

language education (pp. 279-299). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Crookall, D., & Oxford, R. (1990). Linking language learning and simulation/gaming. In

D. Crookall & R. L. Oxford (Eds.), Simulation, gaming, and language learning

(pp. 3-24). New York: Newbury House.

Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 11, 367-383.

345
Crookes, G., & Gass, S. M. (Eds.). (1993a). Tasks and language learning: Integrating

theory and practice. Clevedon, Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Crookes, G., & Gass, S. M. (Eds.). (1993b). Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating

theory and practice. Clevedon, Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Crystal, D. (1992). An Encyclopedic dictionary of language and languages. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Davidson, D. (1971). Agency. In R. Binkley, R. Bronaugh, & A. Marras (Eds.), Agent,

action, and reason (pp. 3-37). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Davis, K. (1995). Qualitative theory and methods in applied linguistics research. TESOL

Quarterly, 29, 427-454.

de Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in

L2 peer revision. Modern Language Journal, 84, 51-68.

Denzin, N. K. (1970). Sociological methods: A source book. Chicago: Aldine.

DeCoker, G. (1996). Seven characteristics of a traditional Japanese approaches to

learning. In J. Singleton (Ed.), Learning in likely places: varieties of

apprenticeship in Japan (pp. 68-84). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Derewianka, B. (1998). A grammar companion for primary teachers. Newtown,

Australia: Primary English Teaching Association.

Derewianka, B. (1999). Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. Singapore:

RELC.

Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. New

York: Routledge.

346
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of

education. New York: Macmillan.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

Diaz, R. M., & Berk, L. E. (1992). Private speech: From social interaction to self-

regulation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Di Pietro, R. J. (1987). Strategic interaction: Learning language through scenarios.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Donato, R. (1988). Beyond group: A psycholinguistic rationale for collective activity in

second language learning. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Delaware.

Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G.

Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56).

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second

language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language

learning (p. 27-50). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dornyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty

& J. Williams, (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition,

(pp. 197-261). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159-199.

Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),

Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 392-431). New York: Macmillan.

347
Doyle, W., & Carter, K. (1984). Academic tasks in classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry, 14,

129-149.

Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. J. (1998). Developments in English for specific

purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Duff, P. A. (1993a). Changing times, changing minds: Language socialization in

Hungarian-English Schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

California, Los Angeles.

Duff, P. A. (1993b). Tasks and interlanguage performance: An SLA perspective. In G.

Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and

practice (pp. 57-95). Clevedon, Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Duff, P. A. (1995). An ethnography of communication in immersion classrooms in

Hungary. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 505-537.

Duff, P. A. (1996). Different languages, different practices: Socialization of discourse

competence in dual-language school classrooms in Hungary. In K. M. Bailey &

D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom (pp. 407-433). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Duff, P. A. (2000). Repetition in foreign language classroom interaction. In J. K. Hall &

L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second andforeign language learning through classroom

interaction (pp. 109-138). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Duff, P. A. (2001). Language, literacy, content, and (pop) culture: Challenges for ESL

students in mainstream courses. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 103-

132.

348
Duff, P. A. (2002). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and

difference: An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream.

Applied Linguistics, 23, 289-322.

Duff, P. A. (2003, March). New directions and issues in second language socialization

research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for

Applied Linguistics, Arlington, VA.

Duff, P. A., & Polio, C. G. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign

language classroom? Modern Language Journal, 74, 154-166.

Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duranti, A., & Brenneis, D. (1986). The audience as co-author. Text, 6, 239-347.

Duranti, A., & Ochs, E., (1986). Literacy instruction in a Samoan village. In B. B.

Schieffelin & P. Gilmore (Ed.), The acquisition of literacy: Ethnographic

perspectives (pp. 213-232). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Early, M. (1992). Aspects of becoming an academically successful ESL student. In B.

Burnaby & A. Cumming (Eds.), Socio-political aspects of ESL (pp. 265-275).

Toronto, Ontario: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Edge, J., & Richards, K. (1998). May I see the warrant, please?: Justifying outcomes of

qualitative research. Applied Linguistics, 19, 334-356.

Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of

understanding in the classroom. London: Routledge.

Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Pinter

Publishers.

Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.

349
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching

Research, 4, 193-220.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Emerson, C , & Holquist, M. (1981). Glossary. In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic

imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin (pp. 423-434). Austin, TX:

University of Texas Press. (Original work published 1975)

Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New York: Simon &

Schuster Macmillan.

Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M. D. LeCompte, W.

L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in

education, (pp. 201-225). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Erickson, F. (1996). Ethnographic microanalysis. In L. McKay & N. H. Hornberger

(Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 283-306). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E. (1999). Where's the learning in the service learning? San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

350
Eyring, J. L. (1989). Teaching experiences and student responses in ESL project work

instruction: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

California, Los Angels, CA.

Eyring, J. (2001). Experiential and negotiated language learning. In M. Celce-Murcia

(Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 333-344).

Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Faltis, C. (1997). Case study methods in researching language and education. In N.

Hornberger & D. C. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, vol.

8: Research methods in language education (pp. 145-152). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Faltis, C. J. (2001). Joinfostering: Teaching and learning in multilingual classrooms (3rd

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Faltis, C. J., & Hudelson, S. J. (1998). Bilingual education in elementary and secondary

school communities: Toward understanding and caring. Needham Heights, MA:

Allyn & Bacon.

Ferris, D., & Tagg, T. (1996a). Academic oral communication needs of EAP learners:

What subject-matter instructors actually require. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 31-58.

Ferris, D., & Tagg, T. (1996b). Academic listening/speaking tasks for ESL students:

Problems, suggestions, and implications. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 297-230.

Finkelstein, B. (1991). Conclusions. In B. Finkelstein, A. E. Imamura, & J. J. Tobin

(Eds.), Transcending stereotypes: Discovering Japanese culture and education.

Yarmouth, MI: Intercultural Press.

Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327-

358.

351
Flowerdew, J. (Ed.). (1995). Academic listening: Research perspectives. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated

text. In N. Denzin & Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.,

pp. 645-672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Forman, E. A., & Cazden, C. B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in

education: The cognitive value of peer interaction. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture

communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 323-347).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied

Linguistics, 19, 1-123.

Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based

learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-324.

Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of

planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3, 215-247.

Fotos, S. (2001). Codeswitching by Japan's unrecognized bilinguals: Japanese university

students' use of their native language as a learning strategy. In M. G. Noguchi &

S. Fotos (Eds.), Studies in Japanese bilingualism (pp. 329-352). Clevedon, Avon,

UK: Multilingual Matters.

Frawley, W., & Lantolf, J. P. (1985). Second language discourse: A Vygotskian

perspective. Applied Linguistics, 6, 19-44.

Frey, L. R. (1996). Remembering and "re-membering": A history of theory and research

on communication and group decision-making. In R. Y. Hirakawa & M. S. Pool

352
 (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (2nd., pp. 19-51). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fried-Booth, D. L. (1986). Project work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fried-Booth, D. L. (2002). Project work (Rev. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fukue, H. (1991). The persistence of Ie in the light of Japanese modernization. In B.

Finkelstein, A. E. Imamura & J. J. Tobin (Eds.), Transcending stereotypes:

Discovering Japanese culture and education (pp. 66-73). Tarmouth, ME:

Intercultural Press.

Futaba, T. (1994). Second language acquisition through negotiation: A case of non-

native speakers who share the samefirstlanguage. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, PA.

Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gauvain, M. (2001). The social context of cognitive development. New York: The

Guilford Press.

Gee, J. P. (1996). Vygotsky and current debates in education: Some dilemmas as

afterthought to discourse, learning, and schooling. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse,

learning, and schooling (pp. 269-282). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A

methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119-169.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second

language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

353
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA:

Houghton Mifflin.

Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. London: Continuum.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd ed.). New

York: Longman.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Goldman-Segall, R. (1992). Collaborative virtual communities: Using learning

constellations, a multimedia ethnographic research tool. In E. Barrett (Ed.),

Sociomedia: Multimedia, hypermedia, and social construction of knowledge (pp.

257-296). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Goncii, A., Tuermer, U., Jain, J., Johnson, D. (1999). Children's play as cultural activity.

In A. Goncii (Ed.), Children's engagement in the world: Sociocultural

perspectives (pp. 148-170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, A. & Duranti, C. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In A. Duranti &

C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as interactive phenomenon (pp.

1-42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Green, J. L., Dixon, C. N., & Zaharlick, A. (2003). Ethnography as a logic of inquiry. In

J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on

teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 201-224). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Green, J. L., & Wallat, C. (Eds.). (1981). Ethnography and language in educational

settings. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

354
Greenfield, P. M. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday

life. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Development in social

context (pp. 117-138). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.

K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-

117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Guberman, S. R. (1999). Supportive environments for cognitive development:

Illustrations from children's mathematical activities outside of school. In A.

Goncii (Ed.), Children's engagement in the world: Sociocultural perspectives (pp.

202-227). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gutierrez, K. D. (1995). Unpacking academic discourse. Discourse Processes, 19, 21-37.

Haines, S. (1989). Projects for the EFL classroom. Surrey, UK: Nelson.

Hall, J. K. (2001). Methods for teaching foreign languages: Creating a community of

learners in the classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hall, J. K. (2002). Teaching and researching language and culture. Harlow, Essex, UK:

Pearson Education.

Hall, J. K., & Verplaetse, L. S. (2000). The development of second and foreign language

learning through classroom interaction. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.),

Second andforeign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 1-20).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

355
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). Language structure and language function. In J. Lyons (Ed.),

New horizons in linguistics (pp. 140-165). Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK:

Penguin.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of

language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Toward a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and

Education, 5, 93-116.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994a). An introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London:

Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994b). The place of dialogue in children's construction of meaning.

In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and

processes of reading (pp. 70-82). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Harlow, Essex, UK:

Longman.

Halliday. M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects of

language on a social semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: principles in practice (2nd ed.).

New York: Routledge

Harklau, L. (1994). ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning

environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 241-272.

Harre, R. (1983). Personal being. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Harre, R. (1993). Social being (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

356
Hasan, R. (1996). Speech genre, semiotic mediation and the development of higher

mental functions. In C. Cloran, D. Butt, & G. Williams (Eds.), Ways of saying:

Ways of meaning (pp. 152-190). London: Cassell.

Hatano, G. (1993). Time to merge Vygotskian and constructivist conceptions of

knowledge acquisition. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts

for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 153-166).

New York: Oxford University Press.

Hatch, E. M. (1978). Discourse Analysis and Second Language Acquisition. In E. M.

Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 401-435).

Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual design and statistic for applied

linguistics. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Heath, S. B. (1982). Ethnography in education; Defining the essentials. In R. Gilmore &

A. A. Glatthorn (Eds.), Children in and out of school: Ethnography and education

(pp. 33-55). Washington, D. C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and

classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heath, S. B. (1986). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school.

In B. B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Ed.), Language socialization across cultures (pp.

97-124). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heath, S. B. (1991). "It's about winning!": The language of knowledge in baseball. L. B.

Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Ed.), Perspectives on socially shared

357
 cognition (pp. 101-124). Washington, D. C : American Psychological

Association.

Heath, S. B. (1998). Working through language. In S. M. Hoyle & C. T. Adger (Eds.),

Kids talk: Strategic language use in later childhood (pp. 217-240). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Heath, S. B. (1999). Dimensions of language development: Lessons from older children.

In A. S. Masten (Ed.), Cultural processes in child development: The Minnesota

Symposia on Child Psychology (pp. 59-75). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Heath, S. B. (2000a). Making learning work. Afterschool Matters, I, 33-45.

Heath, S. B. (2000b). Risks, rules, and roles: Youth perspectives on the work of learning

for community development. Zeitschrift fur Erziehungswissenschaft, 3, 61-80.

Heath, S. B. (2001). Ethnography in communities: Learning everyday life of American's

subordinated youth. In J. A. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of

research on multicultural education (pp. 114-128). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Heath, S. B., & McLaughlin, M. W. (Eds.). (1993). Identity and inner-city youth: Beyond

ethnicity and gender. New York: Teacher College Press.

Heino, A., Tervonen, E., & Tommola, J. (2002). Metadiscourse in academic conference

presentations. In E. Ventola, C. Shalom, & S. Thompson (Eds.), The language of

conferencing (pp. 127-146). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Helm, J. H., Beneke, S., & Steinheimer, K. (1998). Windows on learning: Documenting

young children's work. New York: Teachers College Press.

Henry, J. (1994). Teaching through projects. London: Kogan Page.

358
Hertz-Lazarowits, R., & Miller, N. (1992). Interaction in cooperative groups: The

theoretical anatomy of group learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hicks, D. (1996). Contextual inquiries: A discourse-oriented study of classroom learning.

In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 104-141). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Hogan, D. M., & Tudge, J. R. H. (1999). Implications of Vygotysky's theory for peer

learning. In A. M. O'Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer

learning (pp. 39-65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Holliday, A. (2002). Doing and writing qualitative research. London: Sage.

Holquist, M., & Emerson, C. (1981). Glossary. In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic

imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (pp. 423-434). Austin TX: University

of Texas Press.

Horowitz, D. M. (1986). What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL

classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 445-462.

Hoyle, S. M., & Adger, C. T. (1998). Introduction. In S. Hoyle & C. T. Adger (Eds.),

Kids talk: Strategic language use in later childhood (pp. 3-22). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Hymes, D. (1972). Models of interaction of language and social life. In J. Gumperz & D.

Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication

(pp. 35-71). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

359
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: an ethnographic approach:

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Jacoby, S. (1998). Science as performance: Socializing science discourse through the

conference talk rehearsals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

California, Los Angeles.

Jacoby, S., & Ochs, E. (1995). Co-construction: An introduction. Research in Language

and Social Interaction, 28, 171-183.

Jandt, F. E. (1998). Intercultural communication: An introduction (2nd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jefferson, G. (1984). "At first we thought": A nominalizing device for extraordinary

events. Unpublished manuscript, Katholieke Hogeschoool, Tilburg.

Johnson, D. (1992). Approaches to research in second language learning. White Plains,

NY: Longman.

Johnson, D. (1993). Classroom-oriented research in second-language learning. In A.

Omaggio Hadley (Ed.), Research in language learning: Principles, processes,

and prospects (pp. 1-23). Lincolnwood, IL: National Text Company.

Johnson, M. (2004). A philosophy of second language acquisiton. New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.

John-Steiner, V. (1992). Private speech among adults. In R. M. Diaz & L. E. Berk (Eds.),

Private speech: From social interaction to self-regulation (pp. 285-296).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for

teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

360
Kaneko, T. (1992). The role of the first language in foreign language classrooms.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.

Kelly, V. E. (2001). Peer culture and interaction: How Japanese children express their

internalization of the cultural norms of group life (shudan seikatsu). In H. Shimizu

& R. Levine (Eds.), Japanese frames of mind: Cultural perspectives on human

development (pp. 170-201). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Keyton (1999). Relational communication in groups. In L. Frey (Ed.), The handbook of

group communication theory and research (pp. 192-222). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Records, 19, 319-335.

Kilpatrick, W. H. (1925). Foundations of method: Informal talks on teaching. New York:

Macmillan.

Kinginger, C. (1994). Locating contingency in e-mail. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown

University Round Table on Language and Linguistics, 1994 (pp. 210-218).

Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Kinginger, C. (2000). Classroom talk: Form, meaning, and Activity Theory. In J. Lee &

A. Valdman (Eds.), Form and meaning: Multiple perspectives (pp. 99-123).

Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Kitao, K., & Kitao, K. (1995). English teaching: Theory, research and practice. Tokyo:

Eichosha.

Kobayashi, E., & Kobayashi, M. (2000, October). Co-constructing grammatical

knowledge through peer interaction: A sociocultural perspective. Paper presented

at the Second Language Research Forum, Madison, WI.

361
Kobayashi, M. (2002, October). Student agency in L2 task preparation. Paper presented

at the Second Language Research Forum, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Kobayashi, M. (2003). The role of peer support in ESL students' accomplishment of oral

academic tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 337-368.

Kojima, Y. (1988). Nihongo no imi eigo no imi [Meaning in Japanese and English].

Tokyo: Nanundo.

Kohonen, V. (2001). Towards experiential foreign language education. In V. Kohonen,

R. Jaatinen, P. Kaikkonen, & J. Lehtovaara (Eds.), Experiential learning in

foreign language education (pp. 8-60). Harlow, Essex, UK: Pearson Education.

Kramsch, C. (2002). From practice to theory and back again. Language, Culture, and

Curriculum, 15, 196-209.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:

Pergamon.

Kristeva, J. (1986). Word, dialogue, and novel. In T. Moi (Ed.), The Kristeva reader, (pp.

35-61). New York: Columbia University Press.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991). Language-learning tasks: Teacher intention and learner

interpretation. ELT Journal, 45, 98-107.

Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT

Press.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage,

CA: Thousand Oaks.

Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania

Press.

362
Lantolf, J. P. (2000a). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language

Teaching, 33, 79-96.

Lantolf, J. P. (Eds.). (2000b). Sociocultural theory in second language learning. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Lantolf, J. P. (2002). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. In R. Kaplan

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 104-114). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Lantolf, J. P. (2003). Intrapersonal communication and internalization in the second

language classroom. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller

(Eds.), Vygotsky's educational theory in cultural context (pp. 349-370).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lantolf, J. P., & Ahmed, M. K. (1989). Psycholinguistic perspectives on interlanguage

variation: A Vygotskian analysis. In S. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston, & L.

Selinker (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition: Psycholinguistic issues

(pp. 93-108). Clevedon, Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Theoretical framework: An Vygotskian approaches to

second language research. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian

approaches to second language research (pp. 1-32). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Lantolf, J. P., & Genung, P. B. (2000). "I'd rather switch than fight": An activity-

theoretical study of power, success, and failure in a foreign language classroom.

In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization:

Ecological perspectives (pp. 175-196). London: Continuum.

363
Lantolf, J., & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition.

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 108-124.

Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory:

Understanding second language learners as people. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner

contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 141-158).

Harlow, Essex, UK: Pearson Education.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching

English as a second or foreign language (2nd ed., pp. 279-296). New York:

Newbury House.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J. (1991). Situated learning in communities of practice. In L. Resnick, J. M.

LeVine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp.

63-82). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In S. Chaiklin & Lave (Eds.), Understanding

practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Lave, J., Murtaugh, M., & de la Rocha, O. (1984). The dialectic of arithmetic in grocery

shopping. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Development in

social context (pp. 67-94). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in

educational research (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

364
Lee, J. F. (2000). Tasks and communicating in language classrooms. New York:

McGraw Hill.

Legutke, M., & Thomas, H. (1991). Process and experiences in the language classroom.

Harlow, Essex, UK: Longman.

Leki, I. (2001). "A narrow thinking system": Normative-English-speaking students in

group projects across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 39-67.

Leont'ev, A. A. (1981). Psychology and the language learning process. Oxford:

Pergamon Press.

Leont'ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed. and

Trans.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37-71). Armonk, NY:

M. E. Sharpe.

Leung, C. (2001). Evaluation of content-language learning in the mainstream classroom.

In B. Mohan, C. Leung, & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in the

mainstream: Teaching, learning, and identity (pp. 177-198). Harlow, Essex, UK:

Longman.

Leung, C , Harris, R., Rampton, B. (2004). Living with inelegance in qualitative research

on task-based learning. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and

language learning (pp. 242-267). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The

MIT Press.

Levinson, S. (1979). Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17, 365-399.

365
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Liang, X. (1999). Dilemmas of cooperative learning: Chinese students in a Canadian

school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia,

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Liang, X., & Mohan, B. A. (2003). Dilemmas of cooperative learning and academic

proficiency in two languages. Journals of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 35-

51.

Lincoln, Y. S. (1990). The making of a constructivist: A remembrance of transformations

past. In E. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 67-87). Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. C. (1990). Judging the quality of case study reports.

Qualitative Studies in Education, 3, 53-59.

Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical

perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Liu, J. (2001). Asian students' classroom communication patterns in U.S. universities.

Westport, CT: Ablex.

Lockwood, M. (2001). Checking on the checker: Using computers to talk about spelling

and grammar. In P. Goodwin (Ed.), The articulate classroom: Talking and

learning in the primary school (pp. 133-142). London: David Fulton.

Lofland, J., & Lofland, L.H. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative

observation and analysis (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing

Company.

366
Long, M. (1980). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.

Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language

classroom. In M. Clarke & J. Handscombe (Eds.), On TESOL '82: Pacific perspectives

on language learning and teaching (pp. 207-225). Washington, D.C.: TESOL.

Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language

training. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second

language acquisition (pp. 77-99). Clevedon, Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Long, M. (1989). Task, group, and task-group interactioa University ofHawai'i Working

Papers in English as a Second Language, 8, 1-26.

Long, M. & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL

Quarterly, 26, 27-56.

Loveday, L. (1986). Explorations in Japanese sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.

Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations (M.

Lopez-Morillas & L. Solotaroff, Trans. & M. Cole Ed.). Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1974)

Lynch, T., & Maclean, J. (2001). "A case of exercising": Effects of immediate task

repetition on learners' performance. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.),

Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing

(pp. 141-162). Harlow, Essex, UK: Pearson Education.

Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

367
Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. Clevedon,

Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Mandelbaum, D. G. (Ed.). (1949). Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language,

culture, and personality. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Marshall, C , & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Martin, J. R. (2000). Design and practice: Enacting functional linguistics. Annual Review

of Applied Linguistics, 20, 116-126.

Mathison, S. (1988). "Why triangulation?" Educational Researcher, 17, 13-17.

Matusov, E. (2000). Intersubjectivity as way of informing teaching design for a

community of learners classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 383-402.

Maybin, J. (2003). Voices, intertextuality and induction into schooling. In S. Goodman,

T. Lillis, J. Maybin, & N. Mercer (Eds.), Language, literacy and education: A

reader (pp. 159-187). Trent, UK: Trentham Books.

Maybin, J., Mercer, N., Stierer, B. (1992). "Scaffolding" learning in the classroom. In K.

Norma (ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the National Oracy Project (pp. 186-

195). London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Maynard, S. K. (1997). Japanese communication: Language and thought in context.

Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i press.

Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

368
McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). Embedded identities: Enabling balance in urban contexts. In

S. B. Heath & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Identity and inner-city youth: Beyond

ethnicity and gender (pp. 36-68). New York: Teachers College Press.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Mehnert, U. (1998). The effects of different length of time for planning on second

language performance. Studies in Second language Acquisition, 20, 83-108.

Mehra, B. (2001). Research or personal quest?: Dilemmas in studying my own kind. In

B. M. Merchant & A. I. Willis (Eds.), Multiple and intersecting identities in

qualitative research (pp. 69-82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mercer, N. (1992). Culture, context, and construction of knowledge in the classroom. In

P. Light & G. Butterworth (Eds.), Context and cognition: Ways of learning and

knowing (pp. 28-46). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mercer, N. (1994). Neo-Vygotskian Theory and classroom education. In B. Stierer & J.

Maybin (Eds.), Language, literacy and learning in educational practice (pp. 92-

110). Clevedon, Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Mercer, N. (1995a). Language and the guided construction of knowledge. In G. M. Blue

& R. Mitchell (Eds.), Language and education (pp. 28-40). Clevedon, Avon, UK:

Multilingual Matters.

Mercer, N. (1995b). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and

learners. Clevedon, Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London:

Routledge.

369
Mercer, N., Philips, T., & Somekh, B. (1991). Spoken language and new technology: The

SLANT project. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 195-202.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded

sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, P. (1986). Teasing as language socialization and verbal play in a white working-

class community. In B. B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Ed.), Language socialization

across cultures (pp. 199-212). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Miller, P. (1994). Narrative practices: Their role in socialization and self-construction. In

U. Neisser & R. Fivush (Eds.), The remembering self: Construction and accuracy

in the self-narrative (pp. 158-179). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Minami, M. (1995). Wakachi gaki [Japanese segmentation]. In Y. Oshima-Takane & B.

MacWhinney (Eds.), CHILDES Manual for Japanese (pp. 39-43). Montreal:

McGill University.

Minick, N. J. (1985). L. S. Vygotsky and Soviet Activity Theory: New perspectives on the

relationship between the mind and society. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

Moder, C. L., & Halleck, G. B. (1998). Framing the language proficiency interview as a

speech event: Native and non-native speaker's questions. In R. Young & A. W.

He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral

proficiency (pp. 117-146). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Mohan, B. A. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

370
Mohan, B. A. (1987). The structures of situations and the analysis of text. In R. Steel &

T. Threadgold (Eds.), Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday

(pp. 507-522). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Mohan, B. A. (1990). LEP students and the integration of language and content:

Knowledge structures and tasks. In C. Simich-Dudgeon (Ed.), Proceedings of the

First Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues (pp. 113-

160). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Bilingual

Education & Minority Language Affairs.

Mohan, B. (2001). The second language as a medium of learning. In B. Mohan, C.

Leung, & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in the mainstream:

Teaching, learning, and identity (pp. 107-126). Harlow, Essex, UK: Pearson

Education.

Mohan, B. (in press). Knowledge structures in social practice. In J. Cummins & C.

Davison (Eds.), Kluwer handbook of English Language Teaching. Dordrecht, the

Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Mohan, B., & Beckett, G. H. (2001). A functional approach to research on content-based

language learning: Recasts in causal explanations. Canadian Modern

Language Review, 58, 133-155.

Mohan, B. A., & Marshall Smith, S. (1992). Context and cooperation in academic tasks.

In D. Nunan (Ed.), Collaborative language learning and teaching (pp. 81-99).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

371
Morita, N. (1996). A study of oral academic presentation tasksfroma language

socialization perspective. Unpublished MA thesis, University of British

Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Morita, N. (2000). Discourse socialization through oral classroom activities in a TESL

graduate program. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 279-310.

Morita, N. (2002). Negotiating participation in second language academic communities:

A study of identity, agency, and transformation. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia,

Canada.

Murphey, T. (1998). Language hungry!: An introduction to language learning fun and

self-esteem. Tokyo: McMillan.

Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., & van Lier, L. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in

conversational and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis.

TESOL Quarterly, 35, 377-405.

Nakane, C. (1970). Japanese society. Berkley, CA: The University of California Press.

Nelson, J. (1990). This was an easy assignment: Examining how students interpret

academic writing tasks. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 362-396.

Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for

cognitive change in school. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Nikolov, M. (2002). Issues in English Language Education. Bern, Germany: Peter Lang.

Niyekawa, A. M. (1991). Minimum essential politeness: A guide to the Japanese

honorific language. Tokyo: Kodansha International.

372
Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities and the language classroom.

In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in

research (pp. 159-171). Harlow, Essex, UK: Pearson Education.

Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2001). Changing perspectives on good language learners.

TESOL Quarterly, 35, 307-322.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Ochs, E. (1986). Introduction. In B. B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Ed.), Language

socialization across cultures (pp. 1-13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development: Language acquisition and

socialization in a Samoan village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ochs, E., (1990). Indexicality and socialization. In J. W., Stigler, R. A., Schweder, & G.

Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development

(pp. 287-308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking

context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 336-358). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C.

Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 407-437). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

373
Ochs, E. (2001). Socialization. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Key terms in language and culture

(pp. 227-230). Maiden, MA: Blackwell.

Ochs, E. (2002). Becoming a speaker of culture. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language

acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives (pp. 99-120).

London: Continuum.

Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (1984). Language acquisition and socialization: Three

developmental stories and their implications. In R. A. Shweder & R. LeVine

(Eds.), Cultural theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion (pp. 276-320).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O'Connor, M. C , & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating

thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning,

and schooling (pp. 63-103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ohta, A. (1991). Evidentiality and politeness in Japanese. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 2,

211-238.

Ohta, A. (1994). Socializing the expressions of affect: An overview of affective particle

use in the Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Issues in Applied Linguistics,

5, 303-326.

Ohta, A. S. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse:

Learner-learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development.

Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 93-121.

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

Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

374
Ondarra, K. J. (1997). Collaborative negotiation of meaning: A longitudinal approach.

Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Packer, M. J. (2001). Changing classes: Shifting the trajectory of development in school. In M.

J. Packer & M. B. Tappan (Eds.), Cultural and critical perspectives on human

development (pp. 113-146). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Pally, M. (1997). Critical thinking in ESL: An argument for sustained content. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 6, 293-311.

Palys, T. (1997). Research decisions: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives (2nd ed.).

Toronto: Harcourt Brace & Company.

Parks, S. (2000). Same task, different activities: Issues of investment, identity, and use of

strategy. TESL Canada Journal, 17, 64-88.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the

(re)construction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second

language (pp. 155-177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (2000). The one-clause-at-a-time hypothesis. In H.

Riggenbach (Ed.), Perspectives onfluency(pp. 163-199). Ann Arbor, MI: The

University of Michigan Press.

Peak, L. (1998). The Suzuki Method of music instruction. In T. Rohlen & G. LeTendre

(Eds.), Teaching and learning in Japan (pp. 345-368). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

375
Pepper, G. L. (1995). Communicating in organizations: A cultural approach. New York:

McGraw Hill.

Peters, A, M. (1996). The development of collaborative story retelling by a two-year-old

blind child and his father. In D. I. Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis, J. Guo (Eds.),

Social interaction, social context, and language: Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-

Trip (pp. 391-416). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Philips, L., & Jorgenson, M. W. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. Sage:

London.

Pica, T. (1992). The textual outcomes of native speaker-non-native-speaker negotiation:

What do they reveal about second language learning? In C. Kramsch & S.

McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-Disciplinary perspectives

on language study (pp. 198-237). Lexington: D. C. Heath and Company.

Pica, T., Halliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensive output as an

outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 11, 63-90.

Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for

second language instruction. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language

learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-34). Clevedon, Avon, UK:

Multilingual Matters.

Piatt, E. & Brooks, F. B. (1994). The "acquisition-rich environment" revisited.

Modem Language Journal, 78, 497-511.

376
Polio, C. G., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Teachers' language use in university foreign language

classrooms: A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation.

Moderen Language Journal, 78, 313-326.

Pon, G., Goldstein, T., & Schecter, S. (2003). Interrupted by silences: The contemporary

education of Hong-Kong-born Chinese Canadians. In R. Bay ley & S. R. Schecter

(Eds.), Language socialization in bilingual and multilingual societies (pp. 114-

127). Clevedon, Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Poole, D. (1990). Contextualizing IRE in an eight-grade quiz review. Linguistics and

Education, 2, 185-211.

Poole, D. (1992). Language socialization in the second language classroom. Language

Learning, 42, 593-616.

Poole, D. (1994). Routine testing practices and the linguistic construction of knowledge.

Cognition and Instruction, 2, 125-150.

Poole, D. (2002). Discourse analysis and applied linguistics. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The

Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 73-84). Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Prior, P. (1995). Redefining the task: an ethnographic examination of writing and

response in graduate seminars. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic

writing in a second language: Essays on research & pedagogy (pp. 47-82).

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Prior, P. (1998). Writing/Disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the

academy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

377
Putney, L. G., Green, J., Dixon, C., Duran, R., & Yaeger, B. (2000). Consequential

progressions: Exploring collective-individual development in a bilingual

classroom. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on

literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 86-

126). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar

of the English language. London: Longman.

Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Ethnographic approaches and methods in L2

writing research: A critical guide and review. Applied Linguistics, 20, 44-70.

Ramirez, A. G. (1995). Creating contexts for second language acquisition: Theory and

methods. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Reppy, J. M., & Adams, J. (2000). English as a Second Language. In J. W. Rosenthall

(Ed.), Handbook of undergraduate second language education (pp. 73-92).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Richards, J. C , & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and

applied linguistics (3rd ed.). Harlow, Essex, UK: Pearson Education.

Rivera, H. H., & Tharp, R. G. (2004). Sociocultural activity settings in the classroom: A

Study of a classroom observation system. In H. C. Waxman, R. G. Tharp, & R. S.

Hilberg (Eds.), Observational research in U.S. classrooms: New approaches for

understanding cultural and linguistic diversity (pp. 205-230). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, P. (2001a). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A

triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.),

378
 Cognition ad second language instruction (pp. 287-318). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Robinson, P. (2001b). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring

interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27-57.

Roebuck, R. (2000). Subjects speak out: How learners position themselves in a

psycholinguistic task. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second

language learning (pp. 79-95). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rogoff, B. (1984). Adult assistance of children's learning. In T. E. Raphael (Ed.), The

contexts of schooled-based literacy (pp. 27-40). New York: Random House.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Rogoff, B. (1993). Children's guided participation and participatory appropriation in a

sociocultural activity. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in

context: Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 121-153). Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory

appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. D.

Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139-164). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, vol. 2 (pp. 679-744). New York: Wiley.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford

University Press.

379
Rogoff, B., & Gardner, W. (1984). Adult guidance of cognitive development. In B.

Rogoff & J. Lave (Ed.), Everyday cognition: Development in social context (pp.

95-116). Cambridge, CA: Harvard University Press.

Rommetveit, R. (1974). On message structure: A framework for the study of language

and communication. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Rommetveit, R. (1979). On the architecture of intersubjectivity. In R. Rommetveit & R.

Blakar (Eds.), Studies of language, thought, and verbal communication (pp. 93-

107). London: Academic Press.

Rossman, G., & Rallis, S. F. (1998). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative

research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Salomon, G. (Ed.). (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational

considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Saville-Troike, M. (1988). Private speech: evidence for second language learning

strategies during the "silent" period. Journal of Child Language, 15, 567-590.

Saville-Troike, M. (2003). The ethnography of communication: An introduction (3rd ed.).

Oxford: Blackwell.

Schegloff, E. A., Ochs, E., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Introduction. In E. Ochs, E. A.

Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 1-51).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schieffelin, B. B. (1979). Getting it together: An ethnographic approach to the study of

the development of communicative competence. In E. Ochs & b. B. Schieffelin

(Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 73-108). New York: Academic Press.

380
Schieffelin, B (1986). Teasing and shaming in Kaluli children's interactions. In B. B.

Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures (pp.165-

181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schieffelin, B. B. (1990). The give and take of everyday life: Language socialization of

Kaluli children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schieffelin, B., & Ochs, E. (Eds.). (1986). Language socialization across cultures.

Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Schieffelin, B., & Ochs, E. (1996). The microgenesis of competence: Methodology in

language socialization. In D. I. Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratziz, & J. Guo (Eds.),

Social interaction, social context, and language: Essay in honor of Susan Ervin-

Tripp (pp. 251-263). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Schmuck, R. (1985). Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn: Basic concepts. In R.

Slavin, S. Sharon, S. Kagan, R. H. Lazarowits, Webb, & Schmuck (Eds.),

Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 1-15). New York: Plenum.

Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural communication. Maiden, MA:

Blackwell.

Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural communication (2nd ed.). Maiden,

MA: Blackwell.

Scribner, S. (1997). The cognitive consequences of literacy. In E. Tobach, R. J.

Falmagne, M. B. Parlee, L. M. W. Martin, & A. S. Kapelman (Eds.), Mind and

381
 social practice: Selected writings of Sylvia Scribner (pp. 160-189). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Shalom, C. (1993). Established and evolving spoken research process genres: Plenary

lecture and poster session discussions at academic conferences. English for

Specific Purposes, 12, 37-50.

Shamim, F. (1996). Learner resistance to innovation in classroom methodology. In H.

Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 105-121). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Sheppard, K., & Stoller, F. (1995). Guidelines for the integration of student projects in

ESP classrooms. English Teaching Forum, 33, 10-15.

Shinmura, I. (Ed.). (1998). Kojien Japanese Language Dictionary (5th ed.). Tokyo:

Iwanami Shoten.

Shweder, R. A., Goodnow, J., Hatano, G., LeVine, R., Markus, & Miller, P. (1998). The

cultural psychology of development: One mind, many mentalities. In W. Damon

& R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: The theoretical model of

human development (pp. 865-937). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Shulman, L. S. (1988). Disciplines of inquiry in education: An overview. In R. M. Jaeger

(Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 3-18). Washington,

D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

Singleton, J. (1998). Learning in likely places: Varieties of apprenticeship in Japan. New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction.

Applied Linguistics, 77,38-62.

382
Skehan, P. (1998a). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Skehan, P. (1998b). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 268-

286.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences

on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185-211.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and

second language instruction (pp. 183-205). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Slimani, A. (1992). Evaluation of classroom interaction. In J. C. Alderson & A. Beretta

(Eds.), Evaluating second language education (pp. 197-221). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Smagorinsky, P. (1997). Personal growth in social context: A high school senior's search

for meaning in and through writing. Written Communication, 14, 63-105.

Smagorinsky, P. (1998). Thinking and speech and protocol analysis. Mind, Culture, and

Activity: An International Journal, 5, 157-177.

Spack, R. (1998). Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community: How

far should we go? In V. Zamel & R. Spack (Eds.), Negotiating academic

literacies: Teaching and learning across languages and cultures (pp. 85-104).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Spivey, N. N. (1997). The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing, and the making of

meaning. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

383
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace &

Company.

Staab, C. F. (1986). Eliciting the language of forecasting and reasoning in elementary

school classrooms. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 32, 109-126.

Staab, C. (1992). Oral Language for Today's classroom. Markham, Canada: Pippin

Publishing.

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stoller, F. (1997). Project work: A means to promote language content. English Teaching

Forum, 35, 2-19.

Stoller, F. L. (2002). Project work: A means to promote language arid content. In J. C.

Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An

anthology of current practice (pp. 107-119). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Stone, C. A. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In E. Forma, N.

Minick, C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in

children's development (pp. 169-183). New York: Oxford University Press.

Storch, N. (1999). Are two head better than one?: Some roles pair work and grammatical

accuracy. System, 27, 363-374.

Stryker, S. B., & Leaver, B. L. (1997). Content-based instruction: Some lessons and

implications. In S. B. Stryker & B. L. Leaver (Eds.), Content-based instruction in

foreign language education (pp. 285-312). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown

University Press.

384
Sugiura, Y., & Gillespie, J. K. (1993). Nihon bunka wo eigo de shyookai suru jiten [A

dictionary for explaining Japanese culture in English]. Tokyo: Japan Times.

Suzuki, T. (1978). Words in context: A Japanese perspective on language and culture.

Tokyo: Kodansha International.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G Cook &

B. Seidlhoffer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in

honour ofH. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J.

Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.

64-81). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through

collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.). Sociocultural theory and second

language learning (pp. 97-114). New York: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (2001a). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and

to validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18, 275-302.

Swain, M. (2001b). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative

tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 44-63.

Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as means of

second language learning. Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics, 22, 171-185.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent

French Immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-

337.

385
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: the uses of the first

language. Language Teaching Research, 4, 251-274.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue:

Exploring task effects. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching

pedagogical tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 99-118).

Harlow, Essex, UK: Pearson Education.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: A course for

nonnative speakers of English. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Talyzina, N. (1981). The psychology of learning. Moscow: Progress Press.

Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: repetition, dialogue, and imaginary in conversational

discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and

schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tin, T. B. (2000). Multi-dimensionality of idea framing in group work in academic

settings. Language and Education, 14, 223-249.

Tough, A. (1971). The adult's learning projects: A fresh approach to theory and practice

in adult learning. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: The Ontario Institute for Studies in

Education.

Tracy, K. (1997). Colloquium: Dilemmas of academic discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

386
Turnbull, M. S. (1998). Multidimensional project-based teaching in core French: A case

study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ontario Institute for Studies in

Education of the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Valsiner, J. (1998). The guided mind: A sociogenetic approach to personality.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis.

Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second-

language classroom research. Harlow, Essex, UK: Longman,

van Lier, L. (1990). Ethnography: Bandaid, bandwagon, or contraband? In C. Brumfit &

R. Mitchell (Eds.), Research in the language classroom: ELTDocuments 133 (pp.

33-53). Hong Kong: Modern English Publications and the British Council,

van Lier, L. (1991). Inside the classroom: Learning processes and teaching procedures.

Applied Language Learning, 2, 29-69

van Lier, L. (1992). Not the nine o'clock class: Investigating contingency grammar.

Language Awareness, 7,92-108.

van Lier, L. (1995). The use of LI in L2 classes. Babylonia, 2, 37-43.

van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and

authenticity. Harlow, Essex, UK: Longman,

van Lier, L. (1997). Observation from an ecological perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 31,

783-786.

van Lier, L. (1998a). Constraints and resources in classroom talk: Issues of equality and

symmetry. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages:

387
 Perspectives in research and scholarship (pp. 157-182). New York: The Modern

Language Association of America,

van Lier, L. (1998b). The relationship between consciousness, interaction, and language

learning. Language Awareness, 7, 128-145.

van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an

ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second

language learning (pp. 245-259). Oxford: Oxford University Press,

van Lier, L. (2002). An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and linguistics. In C.

Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and socialization: Ecological perspectives

(pp. 142-164). London: Continuum,

van Lier, L. (2003). A tale of two computer rooms: The ecology of project-based

language learning. In J. Leather & J. van Dam (Eds.), Ecology of language

acquisition (pp. 49-63). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural

perspective. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic publishers.

van Lier, L., & Matsuo, N. (2000). Varieties of conversational experience: Looking for

learning opportunities. Applied Language Learning, 11, 265-288.

Varela, E. (1997). Speaking solo: Using learning strategy instruction to improve English

language learners' oral presentation skills in content-based ESL. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.

388
Volosinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language (L. Matejka & I R.

Titunik, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work

published 1929)

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.).

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed. and

Trans.), The concept of activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 144-188). Armonk, NY:

M. E. Sharpe.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Ed. and Trans.). Cambridge,

MA: The MIT Press. (Original work published 1934)

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.) & N.

Minick (Trans.), The collection of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1. Problem of general

psychology (pp. 39-285). New York: Plenum Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Educational psychology (R. Silverman, Trans.). Boca Raton, FL:

St. Lucie Press. (Original work published in 1926)

Wallace, M. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wardhaugh, D. (1985). How conversation works. Oxford: Blackwell.

Warschauer, M. (2000). The changing global economy and the future of English

teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 511-535.

Watson-Gegeo, K. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL

Quarterly, 22, 575-592.

389
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1992). Thick explanation in the ethnographic study of child

socialization: A longitudinal study of the problem of schooling for Kwara'ae

(Solomon Islands) children. New Directions for Child Development, 58, 51-66.

Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2001). Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward language

socialization paradigm for SLA. Paper presented at the Pacific Second

Language Research Forum, Honolulu, HI.

Watson-Gegeo, K. A., & Gegeo, D. W. (1986). Calling out and repeating routines in

Kwara'ae children's language socialization. In B. B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Ed.),

Language socialization across cultures (pp. 17-50). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Watson-Gegeo, K. A., & Nielsen, S. (2003). Language socialization in SLA. In C. J.

Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.

155-177). Maiden, MA: Blackwell.

Weissberg, B. (1993). The graduate seminar: Another research-process genre. English for

Specific Purpose, 12, 23-35.

Wells, G. (1998a). Dialogues and the development of the agentive individuals: An

educational perspective. Paper presented at the International Society for

Cultural Research and Activity Theory Congress, Aarhus, Denmark.

Wells, G. (1998b). Using LI to master L2: A response to Anton and DiCamilla's "Socio-

cognitive functions of LI collaborative interaction in L2 classroom. The

Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 343-353.

Wells, G. (1999a). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of

education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

390
Wells, G. (1999b). Language and education: Reconceptualizing education as dialogue.

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 135-155.

Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. D. Lee &

P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research (pp. 51-85).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wells, G. (2003). Inquiry as an orientation for learning, teaching, and teacher education.

In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century (pp. 197-

210). Maiden, MA: Blackwell.

Wells, G. & Claxton, G. (Eds.) (2002), Learning for life in the 21st century. Maiden,

MA: Blackwell.

Wendel, J. N. (1997). Planning and second language narrative production. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.). (1978). Recent Trends in Soviet Psycho-linguistics. White Plains,

NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.). (1981). The concept of activity in Soviet Psychology. Armonk, NY:

M. E. Sharpe.

Wertsch, J. V. (1984). The zone pf proximal development: Some conceptual issues. In B.

Rogoff & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), Children's learning in the "zone of proximal

development" (pp. 7-18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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

Harvard University Press.

391
Wertsch, J. V. (1990). The voice of rationality in a sociocultural approach to mind. In L.

C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and

applications of sociohistoricalpsychology (pp. 111-126). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991a). A sociocultural approach to socially shared cognition. In L.

Resnick, J. M. LeVine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared

cognition (pp. 85-100). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991b). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1994). The primacy of mediated action in sociocultural studies. Mind,

Culture, and Activity, 7,202-208.

Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wertsch, J. V., & Bivens, J. A. (1992). The social originals of individuals mental

functioning: Alternatives and perspectives. The Quarterly Newsletter of the

Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 14, 35-44.

Wertsch, J. V., Del Rio, P., & Alvarez, A. (1995). Sociocultural studies: History, action,

and mediation. In J. V. Wertsch, A. Del Rio, A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural

studies of mind (pp. 1-34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. V., & Minick, N. (1990). Negotiating sense in the zone of proximal

development. In M. Schwebel, C. A. Maher, & N. S. Fagley (Eds.), Promoting

cognitive growth over the life span (pp. 71-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wertsch, J. V., Tulviste, P., & Hagstrom, F. (1993). A sociocultural approach to agency.

In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & Stone, C. A. (Eds.), Contexts for learning:

392
 Sociocultural dynamics in children's development (pp. 336-356). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Williams, M., & Burden, R. T. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social

constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Willett, J. (1995). Becoming first graders in an L2: An ethnographic study of L2

socialization. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 757-761.

Willis, D. (2003). Rules, patterns, and words: Grammar and lexis in English language

teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Willis, J. (1996a). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, Essex, UK: Addison

Wesley Longman.

Willis, J. (1996b). A flexible framework for task-based learning. In J. Willis & D. Willis

(Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 52-63). Oxford:

Heinemann.

Wink, J., & Putney, L. (2002). A vision of Vygotsky. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Wolcott, H. (1988). Ethnography research in education. In R. M. Jaeger (Ed.),

Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 327-362). Washington,

D.C.: AERA.

Wolcott, H. F. (1992). Posturing in qualitative inquiry. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L.

Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education

(pp. 3-52). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Wolcott, H. F. (1999). Ethnography: A way of seeing. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira

Press.

393
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving.

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.

Woods, P. (1993). Critical events in teaching and learning. London: Falmer Press.

Wooffitt, R. (1996). Rhetoric in English. In J. Maybin & N. Mercer (Eds.), Using

English: From conversation to canon (pp. 122-144). London: Routledge.

Wray, D. (1988). Project teaching. Leamington Spa, UK: Scholastic Publications.

Wray, D. (1999). Inquiry in the classroom: Creating it, encouraging it, enjoying it.

Ontario: Pippin Publishing.

Wrigley, H. S. (1998). Knowledge in action: The promise of project-based learning.

Focus on Basics, 2, 13-18.

Yamamoto-Wilson, J. R. (1997). How can a knowledge of Japanese help our EFL

teaching? The Language Teacher, 21, 6-9.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Yule, G. (1997). Referntial communication tasks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Yule, G., & Powers, M. (1994). Investigating the communicative outcomes of task-based

interaction. System, 22, 81-91.

Zappa-Hollman, S. (2002, April). Becoming socialized into diverse academic

communities through oral presentations. A paper presented at the Annual

Conference of the American Association for Applied linguistics, Salt Lake City,

Utah.

394
 CONSENT FORM

I have read the informed consent form and understand that my participation in this study
is entirely voluntary and that I may refuse to participate or withdraw from study at any
time without consequence. I understand that all information resulting from this research
study will be kept strictly confidential. I know that I may ask for further information
about the study if I wish to do so at any time during the research period.

Initials
I consent to audio-taping of my classes.

I consent to video-taping of my classes.

I DO NOT consent to audio-taping of my classes.

I DO NOT consent to video-taping of my classes.

I have received a copy of this consent form for my own records. I agree to participate in
this study.

Name (please print)

Signature Date

397
CONSENT FORM

I have read the informed consent form and understand that my participation in this study
is entirely voluntary and that I may refuse to participate or withdraw from study at any
time without consequence. I understand that all information resulting from this research
study will be kept strictly confidential. I know that I may ask for further information
about the study if I wish to do so at any time during the research period.

Initial

I consent to audio-recording of my activities.

I consent to video-recording of my oral presentations and preparations

for them.

I DO NOT consent to audio-recording of my activities.

I DO NOT consent to video-recording of my oral presentations and

preparations for them.

I have received a copy of this consent form for my own records. I agree to participate in
this study.

Name (please print)

Signature Date

(Version date: January 12, 2001)

401
 Appendix D

K E Y STUDENTS' PROFILES

Original Key Students (from Summer 2000)

Kikujiro Oto (Kiku) was a 20-year old sophomore who was majoring in

environmental system engineering. He used to listen to English conversation programs on

the radio in his high schools days. Kiku decided to participate in the Keishin-WPU joint

program, thinking, "I would gain a certain level of English in terms of writing, reading,

and especially communicating (speaking and listening)" (e-mail interview, June 19,

2001). His TOEFL score was 517 at the time of his arrival in Canada.

Kiku was active both in and out of the classroom. In virtually every class, he

contributed to class discussion by airing his opinions or asking questions. Kiku was

chosen as the representative of his class for thefirstsemester, and participated actively in

class discussions and extracurricular activities such as Keishin Open House by sharing

his ideas and opinions. He enjoyed traveling and sports, including baseball, volleyball

and tennis, and socialized not only with other Keishin students, but also with Canadian

and other international students studying at WPU. Kiku had a good sense of humor and

often made his friends laugh. In high school, he enjoyed performing manzaf or Japanese 1

comic stage dialogues (Singleton, 1998) with his friends. According to Kiku, this

experience made him realize the importance of observing people's actions and reactions.

At the end of their nine-month studies, Keishin students compiled a yearbook. For

this project, they took a vote to select individuals who represented the group in different

82
According to Sugiura and Gillespie (1993), manzai is "a kind of vaudeville performance in which two
comedians as a team make spectators laugh by their humorous verbal exchanges" (p. 25). In this
performance, "the two comedians divide their comic roles and entertain the spectators with the skillfulness
of their humorous, adlibbed exchanges" (p. 25)

402
ways. Kiku was chosen as "Mr. Keishin," the most "Canadianized" and confident

member of the Keishin program, all of which attest to his popularity. Kiku participated in

the Intensive University Preparation Program at ELI in August. He chose Dorm A

because of his desire to immerse himself in the Canadian environment and because of its

location close to Keishin House.

Nana Kitamura, a 19-year-old, was also in her second year at Keishin

University. She was majoring in sociology with a special interest in city planning. Nana

went to a Japanese high school in the United States where the medium of instruction was

Japanese:

Because my senior high school was almost all conducted in Japanese and I did not
have some opportunities to go out from school, my English ability did not grow
up.. .when I found the Keishin program, I decided to study English again and
wanted to be a great speaker because I did not make much effort to study English
in senior high, (e-mail interview, June 27, 2001)

Thus, one major reason for Nana to participate in the exchange program was to improve

her English. Because of this, she chose to stay in Dorm B, which was known as a

residence that had the smallest population of Japanese students. Her TOEFL score was

510. Like Kiku, Nana was outgoing, sociable, and likeable, and was often teased by her

close friends. She enjoyed intellectual challenges and would often tell me about her

academic interests in city planning. Nana considered herself optimistic. In her words, "I

just tried my best to study, make friends, go around, see different culture in Canada, and

having lots of fun!!" (e-mail interview, June 27, 2001). In the yearbook, Nana was

selected as the person most likely to have an international marriage. Like Kiku, Nana

studied in the Intensive University Preparation Program at ELI during the summer.

403
 Otome Saotome was 19 years old and a second year student in American and

British literature. As a high school student, she participated in her school's one-year

study-abroad program in New Zealand. She attributed her English development to this

experience. Otome decided to participate in the Keishin program for two major reasons.

For one thing, she wanted to improve her English ability, which she felt plummeted after

going back to Japan. As someone who had previously studied in an English-speaking

country, she thought that it would be embarrassing not to speak Englishfluently.The

other reason was that she found her university life in Japan boring and "wanted to get out

of it" (interview, August 15, 2000). Her TOEFL score was 533.

In August, 2000, Otome was enrolled in the same ELI class with Kiku and Nana.

During this period, she developed a strong friendship with Kiku and several other Keishin

students. Otome did not very much enjoy group activities that were too large. In fact, her

participation in the Keishin Open House was very limited. Otome spent most of her free

time with her close friends. Some of her close friends, including Kiku, would often

describe her as a "bad girl" jokingly. Although selective about whom to socialize with,

Otome was a likeable individual and natural leader whose opinions were valued by other

students. She was self-righteous and outspoken. Although she was a relatively good

speaker of English, Otome did not talk very much in whole-class situations. She liked

listening to music. She chose to live in Dorm B to avoid the "hassle of having to live with

others" (interview, August 11, 2000).

Tomotaka Kaneshiro (Tomo), a 19-year old, was a sophomore who was

majoring in policy science. He was enrolled in the same class with Kiku, Nana, and

Otome at ELI. While in high school, Tomo passed the Pre-1st Grade of the STEP

404
(Society for Testing English Proficiency) Test in Practical English Proficiency, which is

claimed to require the level of proficiency of university sophomores. Prior to his arrival

in Canada, he had obtained 587 on the TOEFL, one of the highest scores among all the

students in the Keishin program. Tomo described his reason to participate in the joint

program as follows:

When I was a freshman, I was doing volunteer activity in the center for multi-
culture. .. There I was in a medical treatment project, and made medical
guidebooks in multi languages and held a free medial consulting program for
foreigners living in [city]. Through those activities, I thought it is really hard to
understand what they are concerned about and what kind of service or support
they really want. And I thought those are mostly because we, volunteers, could
not make up ideal relationships with foreigners and let them trust us so that they
can tell us any kinds of concerns and needs (e-mail interview, October 15, 2001)

In addition to the content-based ESL courses, Tomo took regular courses in

Spanish and anthropology during the academic year. He did not talk as much as Kiku and

Nana in class, but if necessary, he would exercise leadership in doing group work. Tomo

was a critical thinker, a fluent speaker of English, and a serious yet humorous individual.

In the Yearbook, Tomo was chosen by female students to be one of the most popular

male members of the Keishin program. He enjoyed playing pool, listening to music, and

traveling by himself. Tomo decided to live in Keishin House to cultivate his ability to get

along with others harmoniously.

Other Key Students (from Fall, 2000)

Ichiro Hakamada was a 20-year old junior who belonged to the Department of

International Relations. Like Tomo, Ichiro demonstrated a strong knowledge of grammar

and vocabulary. He went to a high school affiliated with Keishin University and did not

have to sit for entrance examination to universities, of which English components

405
required a detailed knowledge of grammar. Because of this, Ichiro felt that his grammar

needed to be improved. He was also a fluent writer of academic English. His use of

sophisticated vocabulary in class often seemed to impress his classmates and teachers.

Yet Ichiro wanted to improve his English further. According to Ichiro,

Compared to English skills of the people (Japanese) who are thought to be good at
English, mine seemed poorer in terms of whatever skill much... it has been my
desire to be able to use English very well for a long time. Although it is difficult
to translate "good English ability" into substantial, it would be, if I tried to define,
600 points or 900 points on TOEFL or TOEIC, respectively.

Ichiro's on-arrival TOEFL score was 543, but he scored more than 600 on the

TOEFL during Semester 1 and took regular courses in economics in Semester 2. He was

very serious about his studies. In fact, he was planning to pursue his master's studies in

international economics in North America, which was one of the principal reasons why

he participated in the joint program. Ichiro would often engage in serious conversations

about his major studies with his friends. At the same time, Ichiro had a good sense of

humor. Like Kiku, he was a natural leader who, in his friends' words, was "smart,"

"funny," and "thoughtful." He was an articulate speaker and a critical thinker. He

participated in class discussions very actively. Ichiro was selected as the representative

for Class A during the first semester. He was one of the two male Keishin students who

chose to stay in Dorm B.

Koyuki Asakura, a 19-year old, was a sophomore majoring in law at Keishin

University. Her major reason for choosing to participate in the joint program had to do

with her strong desire to improve her English. She wrote, "the best basic reason as that it

83
Grammar and vocabulary have been considered to be important part of entrance examinations to
Japanese colleges and universities, which usually include sections requiring examinees to translate English
passages into Japanese, to answer questions about the content of L2 passages and discrete grammar points,
and to choose the "correct" word to fill in blanks (Brown & Yamashita, 1995; Kitao & Kitao, 1995).

406
had been my dream to study abroad for about one year in school days. I wanted to

improve English skill, to live in somewhere nobody knows me and to become

[emotionally and intellectually] strong" (e-mail interview, July 5, 2001). Her initial

TOEFL score was 497. Unlike many other Keishin students, Koyuki entered a private

junior high school, which was affiliated with Keishin University, and then chose to move

on to one of their senior high schools. Thus she did not take entrance examinations for

her high school or university. Like Ichiro, Koyuki perceived this choice as having a

negative consequence on her English learning:

Since no exams were required to get in both my senior high school and university,
I never forced myself to cram knowledge of English into my head excepting for
[midterm andfinal]exam periods. Therefore, comparing to other average
students, I'm not good at grammar and vocabulary and this is one thing I've felt
inferior complex all the time so far. (e-mail interview, August, 5, 2001)

Koyuki was a hard worker and an active participant in class discussions. In

February, 2001, the quality of her academic performance during thefirstsemester was

recognized by the faculty members of the joint program, and she was selected to be one

of the ten recipients of the joint program's scholarship. Koyuki considered herself to be

"competitive and meticulous" (interview, December 9, 2000). She was an affable person

and a "stylish" dresser. She lived in Keishin House.

Rei Takagi, 20 years old, was a junior majoring in international relations. Back in

Japan, unlike many other students, Rei lived in a different area and commuted to Keishin

University, spending about three hours each way. In elementary school, Rei had

opportunities to learn English games and songs from a native speaker of British English.

Despite her small English vocabulary, Rei was able to communicate with her by guessing

the meaning of her utterances. Rei says, "This experience told me that there is much more

407
important thing to learn English than studying English grammar and structure" (e-mail

interview, August 15, 2001).

Rei explained her decision to participate in the Keishin Program as follows: "I

wanted to be in the situation where I really have to use what I have learned to

communicate with people, otherwise I would lose the reason why I have learned English

so hard in school" (e-mail interview, August 15, 2001). Rei's decision was also motivated

by her cousin who, as a former participant in the joint program, told her how much he

had learned from the experience. Rei actively participated in class discussions by sharing

her opinions and asking questions. She said that she was often conscious about her own

language production. Rei considered herself to be "strange" (interview, October 14,

2000) because she wanted to try something not many others do. She was cheerful and

approachable. Rei wanted to share the Japanese culture with people from other countries

and chose to stay in Keishin House, where there was a large population of students

interested particularly in Japan. She studied at ELI during the summer. Her initial TOEFL

was 493.

Ringo Kanda was 20 years old and a sophomore in an interdisciplinary program

in human science at Keishin University. She was particularly interested in anthropology.

As a first grader, she started taking lessons at a private language school in Japan, to

which she felt she was forced to go by her father. She did not feel that it helped her learn

English very much and thus switched to another school when she was a fifth grader. She

took two lessons per week. Ringo wrote, "I came to like speaking English because of my

teacher who taught be when I was in the Grades 5 and 6" (e-mail interview, July 20,

408
2001). This experience, she felt, had the greatest impact on her learning of English. Her

on-arrival TOEFL score was 483.

As a high school student, Ringo wanted to study abroad and knew that there were

several programs available through Keishin University. She wrote,

To participate in the exchange program was the last chance for me to

study abroad with my parents' help. I desired to be able to speak like a
native speaker. I strongly wanted to get English skills and make new
friends as many as possible. Moreover, I expected to keep making efforts
to get English skills, (e-mail interview, July 20, 2001)

Ringo was a hard-working and studious student. Like Koyuki, she was selected as

one of the recipients of the joint program scholarship in February. She was honest and

straightforward. Like Otome, Ringo chose to live in Dorm B to preserve her privacy. She

also preferred a same-gender building. She did not study in the ELI program during the

summer.

Sakura Kinoshita, 21 years old, was a third-year student in the Department of

International Relations at Keishin University. In her junior and senior high school days,

Sakura went to private English language schools to learn both language and culture. In

her second year at high school, she did a three-week home-stay in San Francisco. She

recalled, "It was great experience to me. I had a great time there; however, I could not

communicate with young people like my age. It made me study more hard" (email

interview, September 8, 2001). Sakura participated in the joint program mainly because

she thought that studying abroad would make her a "more flexible person" by providing

with her opportunities to meet people from different cultures. Another reason was that

Sakura wanted to see other cultures to become broader-minded.

409
 Sakura considered herself to be "optimistic, peaceful, and unmeticulous." She was

amiable, thoughtful, and mild-mannered. Although she did not talk as much as some

others in and out of class, she was an attentive listener. Sakura enjoyed playing and

watching sports. In particular, she belonged to a volleyball team organized by her dorm

floor members and took part in several games during her stay in Canada. She studied at

ELI during the summer. Her initial TOEFL score was 480. Like Kiku, Sakura lived in

Dorm A.

Nineteen-year old Shinpei Kusano was a second-year student in the Department

of American and British Literature who was particularly interested in English linguistics.

As is characteristic of students in Japan (see, for example, Kitao & Kitao, 1995), Shinpei

took up English when he entered junior high school. Following his parents' path, Shinpei

enjoyed traveling and had been to many countries. Like other Keishin students, he

decided to participate in the joint program because he wanted to experience other

cultures. Because of his major field of study, he was especially interested in English-

speaking countries. As a university freshman, he participated in a one-month intercultural

program in Great Britain. But he felt, "One-month was not enough because of my English

ability and time" (e-mail interview, September 7, 2001). He also wanted to experience

other cultures "not just from point of traveling, or English-learning course, but from point

of actual life of university or family life" (e-mail interview, September 7, 2001). In other

words, he wanted to live other cultures not only as a traveler or English learner, but also

as a university student or family member. Another reason was that he wanted to live

away from his family. This is because in Japan he lived with his family as his house was

within a commuting distance of Keishin University.

410
 Shinpei was relatively quiet in class, but he often shared his thoughts on class

content with his peers after class. He was very familiar with computers, and constructed

and ran an on-line bulletin board for the whole group of Keishin students. As such, he

was a major computer person in the Keishin community to whom many peers would run

to ask for help. He was resourceful and reliable. He was the other male student staying in

Dorm B. Like Nana, he chose this residence to immerse himself in an English-speaking

environment. His initial TOEFL score was 477.

Yoshino Fujiwara, a 20-year-old, was a sophomore majoring in arts management

in the Department of Sociology. Unlike many of her classmates, she was born and raised

in Eastern Japan. Yoshino loved singing to her own piano accompaniment and was the

singer of the Keishin Band. During her sojourn in Canada, she gave a number of live

concerts at on- and off-campus locations in collaboration with band members as well as

on her own. As such, Yoshino was regarded as the musician of the Keishin program; in

the Yearbook, she was selected to be "the individual who is most likely to become

famous in the future." Unsurprisingly, music was a major if not the major reason behind

her decision to participate in the joint program. Yoshino wrote:

People in Canada are from all over the world. So I thought that I can meet many
people who have own backgrounds and many music based on many background.
If I know them, I guess I would come to know who lam and what my music
(sound) is. (e-mail interview, June 18, 2001)

Yoshino was likeable, "cool," and popular among the Keishin students and Keishin

House residents. She was serious not only about music, but also about academic studies.

She participated actively in class discussions and enjoyed reflecting on her own actions.

She was both observant and thoughtful. In August, Yoshino was in the same class with

411
Ichiro at ELI. Her initial TOEFL score was 490. She chose to live in Keishin House

because of its relatively clean facilities.

412
 Appendix E

STUDENT INTERVIEW GUIDE

Sample Questions about Student Background

• What is your major? Please describe your program of study.

• Why did you decide to participate in the Keishin-WPU exchange program?

• Do you have any concerns about your studies at WPU?

• What is your background in learning English?

• Have you ever had any overseas experience?

• What are your future plans and aspirations after graduating from Keishin
University?

Sample Questions about Tasks

• What do you think are some of the characteristics of a good oral presentation?

• Who do you think is a good presenter? Please give reasons.

• What do you need to do in order to make a good presentation?

• What makes a presentation academic?

• Why do you think your teacher gave you this assignment? (What do you think
the purpose of doing group project work?)

• How did you choose your topic.?

• How did you choose your partners?

Sample Questions about Task Preparation

• How did you prepare for the presentation?

• What did you do that was particularly effective or ineffective? What was the
outcome of this action?

• Who was your intended audience?

413
 • What were some of the challenges that you faced in preparing for the
presentation?

• What, if anything, did you learn from this experience?

• Is there anything that you wish you had done to prepare for the presentation?

• Would you do anything different next time you make a group presentation?

Sample Questions about Task Performance

• What aspects of the presentation did you focus on?

• What do you think of your presentation? How would you evaluate it?

• Do you think you are a good presenter? Please explain.

• What, if anything, did you learn from this experience?

• Would you do anything different next time you make a group presentation?

• What are your overall impressions of your classmates' oral presentations?

• What, if anything, did you learn from your classmates' presentations?

Sample Questions about Teacher Roles

• Did your teachers (i.e., instructor and TA) help you undertake the task in any
way? If so, how?

• Did you find any of the classroom activities helpful for your undertaking of the
presentation task? How did they contribute to your task accomplishment?

• Is there anything that you wish your teachers had done to help you undertake your
tasks? Please explain.

Sample Questions about Learning across Tasks

• How did this presentation compare to the previous ones?

• Did your previous experience contribute to your task performance in any way? If
so, how?

• How do you think this experience might contribute to your next task
performance?

414
Sample Questions from the Final Interview

• What abilities/skills do you think have improved over the academic year?

• What are some of the most important/meaningful experiences that you have had
since you came to Canada?

• How would you explain your project experience to the next group of Keishin
students? What were its rewards and challenges?

• What advice would you give to the next group of Keishin students?

• Is there anything else that you think I should know about your learning through
your group project work and your academic studies?

415
 Appendix F

T E A C H E R INTERVIEW GUIDE

Sample Questions about the Course

• What kind of course is this? Please describe the goals and content of the course.

• How is the course organized?

• What assignments are students required to do for the course?

• How would you describe Keishin 10 students? How would you compare them
with the previous group (i.e., Keishin 9 students)?

• Is this course different in any way from the course that you taught last year? Did
you make any changes to the course in terms of content, format, classroom
activities, and assignments? If so, please explain how and why.

Sample Questions about Teacher Expectations

• What do you think are some of the characteristics of a good oral presentation?

• Who do you think is a good presenter? Please name some of your students and
explain why.

• What do you need to do to make a good presentation?

• What makes a presentation academic?

• What is the purpose of requiring students to do group project work?

• What do you consider to be rewards and challenges of group project work?

• What do you consider to be the purpose(s) of student presentations in

undergraduate courses like this?

Sample Questions about Teacher Roles

• What roles do you think you play in students' oral presentations?

• How did you help students accomplish their presentation tasks?

• How did you evaluate students' presentations?

416
Sample Questions about Students' Task Performance

• What are your overall impressions of your students' oral presentations?

• What are some of the presentations that impressed you in any way? Please
explain.

• What did you think of the key students' task performance?

• Did you learn anything from your students' presentations?

Questions about Students' Change

• Do you think your students' participation in class activities has changed over the

academic year? If so, please describe how?

Other Questions

• Is there anything else that I should know about this course, your students, and the

exchange program?

417
 Appendix G

QUESTIONS FOR K E Y STUDENT AUDIO-JOURNALS

Questions about Field Work and Task Preparation

• What did you do today? (Please state when and where you worked with whom
and for how long.)

• What was your (and/or your group's) goal?

• How much did you accomplish?

• What, if anything, did you learn from today's work (English, culture, subject
matter, etc.)?

• What challenges, if any, did you face in today's work?

• Do you have any other thoughts?

Question about Task Performance

• What do you think of your group's performance of the oral presentation?

• How would you evaluate your own task performance?

418
 Appendix H

TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS

= speech that comes immediately after another person's (i.e.,

latched utterances), shown for both speakers

(words) words not clearly heard, (x), an unclear word; (xx), two

unclear words; (xxx), three or more unclear words

((comments)) comments or relevant details pertaining to interaction

[translation] approximate translation

[[phonetic transcription]] phonetic transcription

<back channels> back channels 84

: unusually lengthened sound or syllable

terminal falling intonation

, rising, continuing intonation

? high rising intonation, not necessarily at the end of a

sentence

! an enthusiastic tone, not necessarily an explanation

(unattached) brief, untimed pause (i.e., less than 0.4

seconds)

x- (attached on one side) cutoff often accompanied by a

glottal stop (e.g., a self-correction)

"utterances/sentences" attempts to reconstruct others' language (oral or written)

underlining spoken with emphasis

Like Moder and Halleck (1998), I use the term "backchannel" to refer to utterances that do not "interrupt
8 4

the current speaker's discourse or cause the speaking turn to shift" (p. 123).

8 5
This was the shortest pause that I felt I could time reliably with a stopwatch.

419
bold-faced focal utterance of point of discussion for analytical

purposes

CAPITAL LETTERS loud speech

italicizing Japanese utterances

Adapted from Duff (1995, 2000)

420
 Appendix I

TASK DESCRIPTION 1

1. Poster-project

This assignment requires you to come up with a poster on non-verbal

communication. Be creative and imaginative with this assignment. For example, you may

use picture from magazines or draw your own, you may use manageable artifacts 9e.g.,

chopsticks, paper fans, etc.) to make your points. In any case, make sure that you poster

is attractive, interesting, and to the point. We will display the posters. You are required to

acts as facilitators (i.e., you will explain the meaning of your poster to people when they

come to see it). You are strongly encouraged to do this assignment in pairs or in

groups of three. Try it even if you don't like working with other people. Cooperative

working skills are something we all need to acquire. We will discuss the details of this

assignment in class. I will show you some posters so that you know what I mean by a

poster project.

(Taken from the Semester 1 course outline)

421
 Appendix J

TASK DESCRIPTION 2

3. Presentation (Starts Week 10)

The students will share their researchfindingswith their classmates and instructor

through a 40-minute oral presentation. This will be a presentation of the research project

conducted in pairs. So the presentations will also be done in pairs. The presentations must

be well organized and interesting. Students are encouraged to use audio-visual and

graphic materials in their presentation and to speak from them (i.e., students are

encouraged not to read from notes).

422
 Appendix K

POSTER PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE

Hello. Now we are working for poster-project, which is about NON-VERBAL

COMMUNICATION. Non-verbal communication means 'communication without
words' such as gesture, sign, and so on. Among many kinds of non-verbal
communication, we chose to deal with how the author of certain cartoon uses non-verbal
communication in order to help readers understand characters unconsciously. For that
reason, what we would like you to do is to guess, from the picture, the personalities of
these characters. Your assistance will help us know how effectively this sort of non-
verbal communication works in cartoon. The title of this cartoon is "Doraemon", which
is one of the most popular cartoons in Japan. Our project-team consists of Otome
Saotome, Ringo Kanda. and Ichiro Hakamada, all of whom came to WPU as exchange
students from Keishin University, Japan.

Please answer following questions, looking at a picture.

Question: What do you think of the personality of each character?
What made you think so?

Character 1

Character 2

Character 3

Character 4

Character 5

Thank you for your cooperation!

423
 Appendix L

Schedule for Academic Year 2000-2001

Poster
Session
Oct. 5, 2000
Presentation
TA Model Presentation Semester 2 about good
Oct. 26, 2000 Presentation presentations
March for the next
I
ELI Semester 1 2001 group
May 7 & 8,
Presentation Presentation
2001
Aug. 2000 Nov. 2000

1—I—
June 2000 10 11 12 Jan 2001 4 Mayj 2001
J j V. J

Pre-departure a three- Language Fieldwork A: Language Fieldwork B: Pre-departure

orientation in week Intercultural Research methods in social orientation in
Japan intensive communication science and education Japan for the
April to June university Sept. to Dec. 2000 Jan. to April 2001 next group
2000 preparation April to June
program at 2001
the ELI
Aug. 2000 Back to Japan
April 25. 2001

424
 Appendix M

SAMPLE WRITING

<Summary>
While subjects' impressions on character 2 were almost totally different from
author's intention, they guessed the personality of the others as the author had intended.
Hence it is reasonable to say that the author approximately succeeds in using non-verbal
communication, in order to help readers understand these characters unconsciously.
The personality of character 1 that subjects guessed was 'nice', 'friendly',
'goody-goody', 'hopeful', 'intelligent', 'polite', 'sweet' and so on, which corresponds to
her real personality in cartoon. Character 3 is drawn cute in order to be loved by a
number of people. As the author had aimed, the answer was about same as author's
intention, for the answer includes 'nice', 'cute' and 'friendly'. Subjects imagined that
character 4 was 'bully', 'athlete', 'quite' and so on. As a whole, his personality was
guessed not good. In fact he is bully and sporty in the cartoon, and therefore the answers
of subjects almost entirely coincide with author's aim. Subjects guessed character 5 was
'bully', 'naughty', 'mean', 'weak' and so forth. He often bullies character 2 with
character 4, and is mean and weak in the cartoon; hence, the answers are similar to his
real personality in the cartoon. The only one of whom personality in cartoon is entirely
different from subjects' guess is character 2. Many subjects regarded him as 'smart',
which is totally opposite of that character in the cartoon. It may be necessary to research
why there is big difference between subjects' guess and real character in the cartoon.
Although subject's answers about the personality of character 2 were totally
different from him in the cartoon, those about others almost corresponded with author's
intention. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to say that the author was successful in using
non-verbal communication effectively. Thus non-verbal communication, such as how
characters were drawn, plays important role in cartoons.

(taken from Otome, Ringo, and Ichiro's poster)

425