Estado actual de las encuestas temáticas

A socio-cultural perspective centres on ‘mediated learning’ (Lantolf, 2000). Socio- cultural theory, drawing on the work of Vygotsky (1978), among others, proposes that

human cognition development is mediated by means of social interaction with others, self and artefacts. A socio-cultural approach to focus on form emphasises the role of scaffolding, especially the zone of proximal development (ZPD), the role of language as a cognitive tool that mediates learning, and thus the role of L1 and learner agency.

First, I look at the zone of proximal development (ZPD). From a Vygotskian perspective, human cognition is mediated via social interaction. It develops and evolves first and most importantly interpsychologically through interaction between people (Vygotsky, 1978, 1987; Wertsch, 1985). The ZPD was originally defined as the level of development that one can attain with assistance which otherwise cannot be achieved without being guided and assisted (Vygotsky, 1978, 1987). The ZPD requires social interaction

especially with a more capable interlocutor such as a teacher, an adult or a more

proficient learner. From a second language learning perspective, Ohta (2001) re-defined ZPD as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by

individual linguistic production, and the level of potential development as determined through language produced collaboratively with a teacher or peer” (p.9).

Learner-learner interaction studies in SLA have progressed beyond expert-novice

interaction to show that learners can benefit from peer-peer interaction with each other (e.g., Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2000, 2001). According to Lantolf (2000), the ZPD should be “more appropriately conceived of as the collaborative construction of opportunities” (p.17). In this way, the ZPD is different from the i+1 input in Krashen’s input hypothesis in that the former emphasises the role of the learner as agent, and co-construction while the latter the role of input (also see Ellis, 2003, 2008; Mitchell & Myles, 2004).

Second, I look at the use of language as a cognitive tool or a “tool for thought” (Mitchell & Myles, 2004, p.194). This view relates to the metalinguistic or reflective function of output (Swain, 2005). Swain noted that the label ‘output hypothesis’, tended to be interpreted as a product rather than a process, even though she said the hypothesis was “about what learners did when pushed, what processes they engaged in” (p.473). Swain (2000) used the term ‘collaborative dialogue’ to emphasise the output process as both a cognitive and social activity where leaners use language to mediate learning.

become an ‘object’ to be further explored (Swain, 2000, 2001, 2006; Swain, Brooks, & Tocalli-Beller, 2002). This is well captured in the words of Swain (2006):

Through speaking, thought is externalized. Externalized as an utterance, it becomes an object. As an object it can be scrutinized, questioned, reflected upon, disagreed with, changed, or disregarded. In order to collaborate, learners must speak to each other. Through their dialogue, they engage in making meaning, and debate the meaning made. To make their meaning as clear, coherent and precise as possible, learners will debate language form. (p.286)

This provides an alternative view on how form is brought into focus during the process of meaning making. Swain (2006; Swain & Deters, 2007) further introduced the term ‘languaging’ to refer to this process of meaning making as a dynamic process where language use mediates language learning.

Third, I look at the role of L1 use in mediating L2 learning. Research has shown that teachers often show unwillingness to use pair/group work for fear of students’ use of L1 (e.g., Alley, 2005; Swain & Lapkin, 2001). Teachers also raise concerns about the

usefulness of task-based learning in Asian EFL contexts. For example, they doubt

whether students learn anything given their use of L1, among other factors (e.g., Carless, 2008; McDonough, 2004). Student L1 use has also been reported as one of the

contextual constraints in teacher task implementation in Asian EFL classrooms (e.g., Butler, 2011).

Such are pedagogical concerns, yet research into pair/group work has demonstrated important mediating functions of L1 use in immersion, ESL and EFL settings. For

example, Behan and Turnbull (1997, cited in Swain & Lapkin, 2000) investigated the use of L1 (English) by immersion Grade 7 students of French when they prepared for an oral presentation. The students worked in groups of four, obtaining information that each had on the lifestyles and environment of French natives. They were asked to use French L2 to do the task, but in two conditions: ‘monitored’ and ‘non-monitored’. In the former, students were reminded to switch back to L2 when they fell back on L1 use. In the latter, they were not when they did so. Results indicate that the group who were not

they used L1 to manage the task, and exchange information and search for L2 words to the presentation. This result, according to Swain and Lapkin (2000), shows a paradoxical and interesting role of L1. Behan and Turnbull concluded that L1 use functions to assist and promote language development as well as functioning as a cognitive tool in

demanding tasks.

The question of how much L1 was used in different tasks were addressed by Swain and Lapkin (2000) in the context of Grade 8 students in French immersion classes in a Canadian school. Dyadic talk in preparation for two written tasks (a jigsaw and a dictogloss) was analysed. They found that students used L1 at 29% of the turns in the jigsaw task and 21% in the dictogloss task. Overall, of all the L1 turns produced, only 12% were off task talk. Notably these students used L1 mainly to move the task along, and do lexical searches. Swain and Lapkin concluded that their immersion teachers were

“misinformed” when shying away from pair/groupwork (p.268) and that “to insist that no use be made of the L1 in carrying out tasks that are both linguistically and cognitively complex is to deny the use of an important cognitive tool” (pp.268-269).

Storch and Wigglesworth (2003) also found their ESL learners used L1 to a limited extent and for similar functions found in the above studies. Research in EFL contexts has also shown useful roles of L1 including (1) providing scaffolding, and establishing ‘inter- subjectivity’ (Antón & DiCamilla, 1998; Brooks & Donato, 1994; Villamil & De Guerrero, 1996); and (2) regulating and gaining control and raising awareness about their

knowledge (Brooks, Donato, & McGlone, 1997). In a recent study in a college in Saudi Arabia, Storch and Aldosari (2010) found modest amounts of L1 use, at 7% for L1 words, and 16% for L1 turns when their EFL learners carried out three writing tasks: jigsaw, composition and text-editing in pairs. Consistent with the findings from previous research, students used L1 largely for managing the task, giving explanations on L2 vocabulary and conducting private speech, speech ‘directed to self’ (Centeno-Cortés & Jiménez, 2004). Research also shows that learners drew on L1 to carry out private speech as a language problem-solving strategy (e.g., Centeno-Cortés & Jiménez, 2004; Ohta, 2001).

The studies so far have shown a modest amount of L1 use. However, Guk and Kellogg (2007) found a high amount of L1 use by their Korean EFL primary school learners, at 46.93% of the total utterances produced in the context of five lessons which included groupwork subsequent to the teacher-led sessions. Alley (2005) also found high school students studying Spanish as an L2 in America used English L1 predominantly in

groupwork, at 71%, though for different mediating functions in their project groupwork. This substantial L1 use also found support in Alegría de la Colina and García Mayo (2009), in a study on L1 use by undergraduate EFL low proficiency learners who carried out three collaborative tasks (jigsaw, text reconstruction and dictogloss), at 55-78% (calculated out of L1/L2 words) depending on the tasks. The amount of L1 use is clearly influenced by the task, learner proficiency and learning contexts. How much students use their mother tongue might also be influenced by their attitudes towards L2 use (Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003). However, research to date has not adequately

addressed why students choose to draw on the native language (Lantolf, 2000). In the current thesis, student voices on why they use L1 during task talk were also documented and discussed.

Fourth, I look at the importance of learner agency in socio-cultural theory. This theory emphasises that it is the learners who take actions to realise the set goal (Donato & McCormic, 1994, p.455). Regarding focus on form, it is the individual learner who approaches their language problems, analysing and weighing their language solutions during the ‘languaging’ process (Swain, 2006). In this way, how learners internalise language forms depends on their agency (Brooks & Swain, 2009), and how he or she is “afforded and constrained by her or his ZPD” (Lantolf & Thorne, 2007, p.266). In other words, it is not so much tasks that create environments for learning but the ‘activity’ the learner engages in that is important (Couglan & Duff, 1994). However, Ellis (2003, 2012) argues that accepting the role of learner agency does not necessarily refute the role of tasks: tasks can have certain predictable influences (e.g., Bygate, 1999a; Newton, 2013; Newton & Kennedy, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997). Evidence for this can be seen

through the effects of tasks on LREs even from studies that take a socio-cultural perspective (e.g., Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2007; Storch, 2001a; Swain &

Lapkin, 2001). This is also the stance I will argue, as supported by the findings in this thesis.

In brief, a socio-cultural perspective on focus on form emphasises the important mediating role of language in L2 learning, the ZPD, L1 use and learner agency. The centrality of socio-cultural theory is summarised in the words of Swain (2005):

Socio-cultural theory … puts language production in a “star role”, so to speak. Speaking (and writing) are conceived of as cognitive tools-tools that mediate internalization; and that externalize internal psychological activity, resocializing, and recognizing it for the individual; tools that construct and deconstruct knowledge; and tools that regulate are regulated by human agency. (p.480)