A Comparison of L2-L2 and L2-Heritage Learner Interactions in Spanish Language Classrooms

Abstract

Conversational interaction studies have typically focused either on second language (L2) learners participating in native speaker-nonnative speaker (NS-NNS) dyads or in NNS-NNS dyads. This study analyzes the task-based interactions of 26 naturally occurring learner dyads in an intermediate-level, university Spanish language classroom, 13 of which were matched L2 learner dyads and 13 of which were mixed L2 learner-heritage learner (HL) dyads. Specifically, the study compared the two dyad types to determine whether they differed in their focus on form or in the amount of talk produced during interaction. Results revealed that the two types of dyads were largely similar, although instances of focus on form were more likely to be resolved in a target-like way by mixed L2-HL pairs than by matched L2-L2 pairs, and there was significantly more target language talk in mixed pairs. Interestingly, L2 learners used the target language significantly more with HL learners than they did with other L2 learners, suggesting that different conversational norms may be at play in the two pair types. Furthermore, posttask questionnaire data indicated that L2 and HL learners alike saw the interaction as a greater opportunity for the L2 learner's development than for the HL learner's, calling into question whether classroom contexts like this one meet the needs of HL learners.

Campus Diversity and Global Education: A Case Study of a Japanese Program

“…While the studies mentioned above addressed students' perceptions about diversity and how issues of race, gender, or class are revealed during instruction, other studies have explored the impact of having students with diverse linguistic backgrounds in the same class, particularly with reference to accommodating heritage learners' unique needs. Not surprisingly, and confirming an existing pattern of findings, for example, in Spanish (e.g., Bowles, Adams, & Toth, 2014;Potowski, Jegerski, & Morgan-Short, 2009), Kondo-Brown (2001) confirmed that high-school classes tailored to nonheritage learners were not effective in helping heritage learners to improve receptive and written-productive skills. Matsunaga's (2003) study, on the other hand, found that knowledge of kanji was a critical factor in determining the Japanese reading proficiency of heritage learners, nonheritage learners, and Chinese learners of Japanese.…”

The effect of dyad type on collaboration: Interactions among heritage and second language learners

“…This proficiency difference may also explain why the present study found a less than optimal learning environment for both types of learners than has been reported in other studies. Blake and Zyzik (2003), Bowles (2011), andBowles et al (2014) examined mixed dyads that were at equivalent points in their institutions' curricula; hence, the proficiency differences among HLLs and L2Ls may have been less that those observed in this study. Moreover, these studies used jigsaw and information-gap activities in which each partner had different relevant information.…”

The Sociocognitive Imperative of L2 Pedagogy

“…Although meta-analytic syntheses of research have shown consistent benefits for recasts and negotiated interaction (Li, 2010;Mackey & Goo, 2007;Russell-Valezy & Spada, 2006), such broad generalizations may have little to say about implementation in specific contexts, given the variation in individual results. Furthermore, the claim that attention to L2 form would be best achieved through ad hoc reactive feedback has been undercut by evidence that (a) learners often fail to correct their peers on grammatical accuracy, particularly when their errors do not affect comprehensibility (Adams, Nuevo, & Egi, 2011;Bowles, Adams, & Toth, 2014;Buckwalter, 2001), and (b) tasks requiring learners to develop or apply elaborate explicit understandings of L2 structural patterns have positive outcomes on subsequent language use (Moranski & Toth, 2016;Negueruela & Lantolf, 2006;Swain et al, 2009). As social approaches to L2 development have gained interest since the turn of the millennium, proponents of the interaction hypothesis have begun to acknowledge the importance of social and pragmatic, contextual factors in explaining variability in learning outcomes (Ellis & Sheen, 2006;Mackey, 2012;Philp & Mackey, 2010) Currently, most cognitive theorists recognize that it is impossible to completely isolate implicit, procedural knowledge from explicit, declarative knowledge during language use, as both systems influence any behaviors we enact simultaneously to some degree (DeKeyser, 2003(DeKeyser, , 2009Ullman, 2015).…”