135 Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching Department of English Studies, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz SSLLT 6 (1). 2016. 135-158 doi: 10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.1.7 http://www.ssllt.amu.edu.pl Observing the interactive qualities of L2 instructional practices in ESL and FSL classrooms Michael Zuniga University of Quebec, Montreal, Canada zuniga.michael_j@uqam.ca Daphnée Simard University of Quebec, Montreal, Canada simard.daphnee@uqam.ca Abstract Discourse features that promote the generation of interactionally modified input and output, such as negotiation for meaning, have been shown to sig- nificantly enhance second language acquisition. Research has also identified several characteristics of instructional practices that render them more or less propitious to the generation of these discourse features. While various class- room observation studies have successfully measured the communicative ori- entation of classroom environments, most of the indicators of interactivity an- alyzed in those studies were obtained through micro-level discourse analyses and not through macro-level analyses of task-related factors shown to directly influence the interactivity of instructional practices. Such a macro-level scale has potential practical implications for teachers and administrators seeking an efficient tool for assessing and improving the interactivity afforded by a given curriculum. The objective of the present study was therefore to develop macro-level scale to determine the extent to which teachers of French and English as a second language use interaction-friendly instructional practices. Using an observation scheme designed to code data on factors shown to in- fluence interactivity, 63 hours of FSL and ESL classes from secondary schools in the Montreal area were observed and analyzed. Results indicate clear dif- ferences between the two groups. While both ESL and FSL classes were less teacher-centered than those observed in previous studies, they were still rated as not-very-interactive. Target language differences showed that the FSL Michael Zuniga, Daphnée Simard 136 classes were more teacher-centered and characterized by fewer interaction- friendly tasks and activities than the ESL classes. Task characteristics, reasons for ESL and FSL differences and recommendations for improvement are discussed. Keywords: classroom observation; interaction; negotiation for meaning; ped- agogical practices 1. Introduction Since the 1980s, research on the role of interaction in second language acquisi- tion (SLA) has isolated several features in second language (L2) learner discourse shown to facilitate acquisition (e.g., Gass, Mackey, & Pica, 1998; Long, 1983a, 1983b; Mackey, 1999; Pica, 1996; Pica, Doughty, & Young, 1986; Polio & Gass, 1998; Sato, 1986). One such feature is negotiation for meaning, a conversational process in which learners work collaboratively to achieve mutual understanding (Gass, 1997; Gass & Varonis, 1985; Long, 1996; Pica, 1987, 1994; Varonis & Gass, 1985). Through such discourse features, learners increase exposition to compre- hensible input and obtain immediate feedback on output, allowing them to test hypotheses and notice gaps in their interlanguage, the result of which becomes intake which is then available for further processing and integration into learn- ers’ developing interlanguage (Gass, 1997; Gass & Mackey, 2015). The product of such negotiation is commonly referred to as interactionally modified input and output, whose positive effect on learning outcomes has indeed been well- documented in the SLA literature by studies showing that interactional feedback of any kind is beneficial to the acquisition of both grammar (e.g., Mackey, 1999; McDonough, 2005, 2007; Loewen & Nabei, 2007; Pica, 1994; Takashima & Ellis, 1999) and vocabulary (e.g., Ellis & He, 1999; Ellis, Tanaka, & Yamazaki, 1994). The objective of the present observational study was to determine the extent to which French and English second language teachers (FSL, ESL) in a public sec- ondary school setting use interaction-friendly instructional practices, wherein instructional practices has a macro-level definition referring to the interactive characteristics of the instructional segments (i.e., tasks and activities) organized and used by teachers. 2. Interaction-friendly instructional practices Research examining the characteristics of instructional practices with regard to their impact on the generation of interactionally modified input and output (e.g., Antón, 1999; Long, 1981; Gass & Varonis, 1985; Pica & Doughty, 1985, Observing the interactive qualities of L2 instructional practices in ESL and FSL classrooms 137 among others) can be defined along five dimensions: (a) the general focus of at- tention in the classroom (i.e., student-centered, teacher-centered), (b) the inter- actional dynamics within a given activity (e.g., collaborative tasks, individual seat work, dialogic and traditional teaching), (c) the information flow between partic- ipants (e.g., required or optional information-exchange), (d) the goal orientation created by the activity (i.e., convergent or divergent) and (e) the number of active participants in a given instructional segment (e.g., individual, pair, group, class). The first dimension refers to the general collective focus of attention in the classroom. In teacher-centered contexts there is, in principle, one teacher- directed interactional focal point between the teacher and the students, while student-centered contexts are composed of multiple self-directed interactional focal points. It is within the crux of such focal points that interactionally modi- fied input and output are generated. Not surprisingly, early interactionist re- search (Doughty & Pica, 1986) found that student-centered contexts generate significantly more negotiation moves (i.e., clarification requests, confirmation checks, confirmation checks) than teacher-centered ones. The authors argued that the student-centered setting offers learners more opportunities to interact. The second dimension, interactivity, indicates whether or not the struc- ture of a given activity encourages interaction in the target language. In the teacher-centered context, for example, interactivity distinguishes traditional teaching, characterized by the unilateral transmission of knowledge from teach- ers to passive learners, and dialogic teaching, which is characterized by respon- sive dialogue that assists students in hypothesis construction (Antón, 1999, p. 304). Within such a dialogic approach, teachers “integrate given explanations with demonstration while placing a central role in the learner’s participation in the instructional activity” (Antón, 1999, p. 308). Antón (1999) analyzed the teacher-centered discourse produced in a traditional and dialogic setting, and found that the interactive nature of dialogic instruction generated significantly more self-repairs, negotiation moves and turn allocations than traditional teacher-fronted instruction. In the student-centered context, interactivity distinguishes individual and collaborative tasks. Not surprisingly, collaborative tasks are regarded as the best way to create conditions favorable to interaction (Doughty & Pica, 1986; Lee, 2000; Long, 1981; Garcia Mayo & Lazaro Ibarrola, 2015). Researchers specifically interested in studying the effect of tasks on interactional modifications, such as negotiation, have focused on the third dimension, that is, the information flow of tasks (e.g., Doughy & Pica, 1986, Foster, 1998; Gass, Mackey, & Ross-Feldman, 2005; Gass & Varonis, 1985; Long, 1983b), which refers to how the information necessary for task execution is distributed among participants and how that infor- mation flows during task completion. For example, during optional information- Michael Zuniga, Daphnée Simard 138 exchange tasks, all participants have access to the necessary information, while during required information-exchange tasks, key bits of information are distrib- uted unevenly to participants, making it necessary to exchange information for task completion (Doughty & Pica, 1986). Required-exchange tasks further vary ac- cording to how the information is distributed among participants: During one-way tasks, one participant holds all the necessary information necessary and must transmit it to the others (e.g., listen-and-draw, 20 questions), while through two- way tasks, different bits of key information are allocated to participants, so that they all must communicate to complete the task (e.g., spot-the-difference). Data from numerous studies investigating the influence of information flow on negotiation (e.g., Doughy & Pica, 1986, Gass, Mackey, & Ross-Feldman, 2005; Gass & Varonis, 1985; Long, 1983a, 1983b; Nakahama, Tyler, & van Lier, 2001) offer solid evidence that tasks requiring an information exchange gener- ate significantly more of the benefits associated with interaction than optional exchange tasks. With regard to the directionality of this exchange, the results are somewhat less clear-cut. Some studies (e.g., Pica & Doughty, 1985; Doughty & Pica, 1986; Gass, Mackey, & Ross-Feldman, 2005; Long, 1983a, 1983b) have shown that two-way tasks are more effective at promoting negotiation than one-way tasks, while others (e.g., Foster, 1998; Foster & Ohta, 2005; Eckerth, 2009) have shown no significant differences and have called for a broadening of the definition of negotiation to include a more socio-constructivist view of the phenomenon (Foster & Ohta, 2005). The fourth dimension is related to the goal-orientation of a given task, that is, whether or not task completion involves the attainment of some com- mon goal. Duff (1986) distinguished between tasks such as oral presentations or debates, where participants’ goals diverge, and tasks such as projects and infor- mation-gap activities, where their goals converge. She studied the effects of such divergent and convergent tasks on nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker (NNS-NNS) dyadic interaction and found that, while the two types of tasks pro- duced about the same number of total words during the activity, the convergent tasks generated about twice as many negotiation moves (Duff, 1986). She ar- gued that, due to their collaborative nature, convergent tasks create more op- portunities for negotiation than divergent tasks, making them useful vehicles of instruction and language practice in second language classrooms. The fifth and final dimension concerns the number of active participants, that is, whether the tasks are carried out in pairs, in groups or as a class. Results from studies examining this variable (i.e., Foster, 1988; Pica & Doughty, 1985; Doughty & Pica, 1986) suggest that the smaller groups generate more negotia- tion for each individual learner. Doughty and Pica (1986) showed that student- centered participation patterns (e.g., during pair and group work) create more Observing the interactive qualities of L2 instructional practices in ESL and FSL classrooms 139 opportunities for negotiation than those generated by teacher-fronted activity, and Foster (1998) revealed that the dyadic condition created more negotiation than the group condition. Statistically speaking, the smaller the group the more opportunities students have to actively participate. While these discourse analysis studies offer a coherent portrait of the types of environments most likely to favor interactionally modified input and output, they do not offer insight into the range and frequency of interaction- friendly instructional practices that teachers use in classrooms. For this, class- room observational studies shed additional light on the topic. 3. Classroom observational studies Mackey and Gass (2011) distinguish between observational studies in which dis- course-level events constitute the unit of analysis (interactionist studies) and those whose unit of analysis includes tasks and instructional practices (instruc- tional segment studies). The interactionist studies have resulted in the creation of various observation schemes used to identify and characterize critical features in classroom discourse such as corrective feedback (e.g., Chaudron, 1977; Lyster & Ranta, 1997), form-focused pedagogical episodes (e.g., Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loe- wen, 2001; Loewen, 2003; Simard & Jean, 2011; Yuqin Zhao & Bitchener, 2007; Zyzik & Polio, 2008), question types (Long & Sato, 1983), turn allocation (Seliger, 1977), and L1 and L2 language use (Duff & Polio, 1990; Polio & Duff, 1994). The objective of the studies observing instructional segments, on the other hand, has been to elaborate observation instruments used to create a coherent and rational portrait of the complexities of the L2 classroom (e.g., Allen, Fröhlich, & Spada, 1984; Fanselow, 1977; Mitchell, Parkinson, & Johnstone, 1981; Ullman & Geva, 1984). Of the resulting observation instruments, none have been as extensively used and validated as the Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching (COLT) observation scheme (Allen, Fröhlich, & Spada, 1984; Fröhlich, Spada, & Al- len, 1985; Spada & Fröhlich, 1995), which was elaborated to determine the extent to which classrooms conform to the principles of communicative language teach- ing. It has been used to develop experiential-analytical scales (see Stern, 1990), whereby instruction in experiential classrooms tends to focus on meaning while the practices in analytical classrooms are more oriented toward form. The COLT is divided into two parts: a macro level part (Part A) and a micro level part (Part B). “Part A describes classroom instruction in terms of the types of activities that take place; Part B describes the verbal interactions which take place within activities” (Fröhlich, Spada, & Allen, 1985, p. 29). While only one Part A category is directly related to the task interactivity research outlined above (i.e., participant organization), most of the Part B categories were intended to detect Michael Zuniga, Daphnée Simard 140 discourse features favoring communication (i.e., information gap, sustained speech, reaction to form/message, incorporation of utterances). Indeed, the COLT has been used to detect communicative differences between classes with regard to target language and program type. An early pilot study for the COLT (Allen, Fröhlich, & Spada, 1984) revealed differences between ESL and FSL classes in Ontario, Canada. While both classes were mostly teacher-centered and form-focused, the input of the ESL class appeared to be more varied, containing a higher level of information gap, more instances of sustained speech, and a greater number of ex- pansion and elaborations than the FSL input. Similarly, the students’ output in the ESL class appeared to be more varied, containing fewer restrictions in terms of form, a higher level of information gap, and more instances of sustained speech than in the FSL data. (Allen, Fröhlich, & Spada, 1984, p. 17) These profiles depicted an ESL class with experiential tendencies and an FSL class that was more analytic in nature. The following year, Fröhlich, Spada, and Allen (1985) published the results of a study comparing the communicative orientation of 13 classes in four differ- ent FSL and ESL language programs. Their observations showed that the ESL and the French core classes were more teacher-controlled and form-focused and less communicative than the French immersion classes. In a subsequent study, Allen and Carroll (1988) found similar results using the COLT to observe eight core FSL classes (four observations of 40-70 minutes). Their results depicted classes falling into the middle of the experiential-analyti- cal continuum, of which 50% of the class time was teacher-centered and 54% was explicitly form-focused. In general, students in these observations did not initiate discourse and there was very little collaborative work. In a slightly more recent study, Fazio and Lyster (1998) used the COLT to compare the learning environments of elementary school children learning French in submersion (minority-language students attending classes designed for native speakers of French) and immersion (English-speaking students attending a French immersion programme in an English-language school) contexts in Mon- treal, Canada. Their corpus was composed of 28.4 hours of submersion and 30.5 hours immersion observation. Results indicate clear differences between the two learning environments. Instruction in the submersion setting was mainly focused on language form with minimal discourse practice, while that of the immersion classrooms appeared to be more balanced in terms of language form teaching and discourse practice. These finding are in line with previous research (Allen, Swain, Harley, & Cummins, 1990) suggesting that immersion classes (Swain & Car- roll, 1987) are more experiential than core French classes (Allen & Carroll, 1988). Observing the interactive qualities of L2 instructional practices in ESL and FSL classrooms 141 These observational studies conducted using the COLT have revealed that target language (i.e., ESL, FSL) and program type (i.e., core, immersion) appear to have an impact on the communicative orientation of classrooms. The results indeed show that ESL classes in general and FSL immersion classes tend to be more experiential than core FSL classes. While such findings offer insight into the general communicative orientation of classrooms, they do not provide evi- dence of the range and frequency of macro-level interaction-friendly instruc- tional practices that teachers use in classrooms. In light of research showing the benefits of interactionally modified input and output on SLA (e.g., Ellis & He, 1999; Ellis, Tanaka, & Yamazaki, 1994; Mackey, 1999; McDonough, 2005, 2007; Loewen & Nabei, 2007; Pica, 1994; Takashima & Ellis, 1999) and results from studies revealing factors shown to render instructional segments more amena- ble to the generation of interactionally modified input and output (e.g., Doughy & Pica, 1986, Gass, Mackey, & Ross-Feldman, 2005; Gass & Varonis, 1985; Long, 1983a, 1983b; Nakahama, Tyler, & van Lier, 2001), we formulate the following research question: To what extent do ESL and FSL teachers in a public secondary school setting use interaction-friendly instructional practices? 4. Method In order to answer our research question, an observational study was designed. We first created a macro-level observation scheme allowing for the coding of interaction-friendly tasks. Then, we coded the instructional practices of 8 teach- ers occurring during 63.8 hours of live classroom activity using our grid. Finally, the coded observations were further analyzed according to the “interaction-fa- vorability index” we devised based on previous study results. 4.1. The corpus The corpus consisted of about 63.8 hours of video-recorded FSL (31.3 hours) and ESL (32.5 hours) high school classes from secondary 2 to secondary 5 (Grade 9 to Grade 12 classes).1 The students were between 11 and 16 years old. Eight language teachers (4 ESL, 4 FSL), each one from a different public secondary school in the Montreal area of Quebec, Canada, participated in the study. Seven of them were women and all had at least 5 years of experience as L2 instructors. They all had been formally trained and certified in university programs validated by the Ministry of Education. They taught regular and enriched programs. Stu- dents in the enriched classes are generally more advanced than students in the 1 The corpus was taken from Simard and Jean (2011). Michael Zuniga, Daphnée Simard 142 core and regular classes. Among the teachers, two taught regular classes, four taught enriched and one taught one class of each. Both the ESL and FSL teachers taught according to guidelines provided by the Quebec Ministry of Education, which privilege a communicative language teaching (CLT) approach (MELS, 2006). As shown in Table 1, each teacher was observed for approximately 8 hours using a camera positioned in a discreet part of the classroom. A research assis- tant was instructed to train the camera on the teachers as they moved through- out the classroom. Audio data was captured by two microphones; one worn by the teacher and the other located near the camera. Finally, to collect data on a wider variety of instructional practices, the 60- to 90-minute observations were spread out over the course of the semester. Additionally, no information was provided to the participants (teachers and students) concerning the study’s ob- jectives and nothing was done to influence the teachers’ instructional practices. Table 1 Breakdown of teachers and classes observed Abbreviated teacher’s name Time observed Sex Language J L C P B D S F 7.5 hours 6.3 hours 8.75 hours 8.75 hours 8.75 hours 8.75 hours 7.5 hours 7.5 hours F F F F F F F M FSL FSL FSL FSL ESL ESL ESL ESL Note. F = female; M = male; FSL = French as a second language; ESL = English as a second language. 4.2. Observation grid Since our research question was related to the observation of practices used to promote interaction in the L2 classroom, we decided to create a macro-level observation scheme using the five dimensions organizing the negotiation stud- ies presented above (i.e., general focus of attention, interactivity, information flow, goals, participant organization). Recall that the COLT, although allowing for the coding of interaction-friendly “environments,” does not specifically focus on task favorability to interaction. The unit of analysis for the present study is, therefore, an instructional segment, that is, a time segment with a definable beginning and end allotted to a given classroom activity (i.e., tasks, activities, class business). As suggested by Cone and Foster (2006) and Quivy and Camp- enhoudt (1988), the creation of an observation grid should include the estab- lishment of the pertinent parts, followed by a pilot period, and an interrater val- idation. The components of the grid are illustrated in Table 2. Observing the interactive qualities of L2 instructional practices in ESL and FSL classrooms 143 Table 2 Observation grid: Task favorability to negotiation General focus of attention Interactivity Information flow Goals Participant organization Duration in minutes Student-centered activity Collaborative tasks Required information-exchange Convergent Pairs Group Class Optional information-exchange Convergent Pairs Group Class Divergent Pairs Group Class Individual tasks Questions Divergent Individual No question Divergent Individual Teacher-centered activity Dialogic teaching Bilateral Divergent Class Traditional teaching Unilateral Divergent Class The first dimension concerns the general focus of attention, that is, whether students interact with each other (student-centered activity) or whether the teacher is the center of attention (teacher-centered activity). The second characteristic concerns the segments’ interactivity, that is, whether stu- dent-centered activity is individual or collaborative and whether teacher-cen- tered activity is traditional or dialogic. Traditional teaching is defined as events where information flows unilaterally from the teacher to the students (e.g., a lec- ture or a dictation), and where students’ questions are answered directly and ex- plicitly, without the engagement of scaffolding functions. Dialogic teaching,2 on the other hand, is characterized by a bidirectional flow of information, whereby teachers engage students in a conversation through which they are ultimately led to create their own hypotheses about given language features or topics. The remaining variables are linked to the quality of interaction that the activities generate. For example, information flow refers to whether or not col- laborative tasks require an exchange of information, or whether or not students can ask questions during individual work, or whether or not information flows unilaterally or bilaterally during teacher-centered activity. With regard to goal orientation, tasks create situations where participants’ goals either converge or diverge. For example, problem-solving tasks create convergent goals while de- bates generate divergent ones. Finally, as for participant organization, classroom activity can either be conducted in the individual, pair, group or class setting. In general, the level of interactivity for each individual participant increases as the number of participants in the setting decreases. As for the classroom time that was not pedagogic in nature, we coded segments that were teacher-directed as 2 Wood, Bruner, and Ross’s (1976) six scaffolding functions were used to identify evidence of dia- logic teaching events in the data: (a) recruitment, (b) reducing the degrees of freedom, (c) main- taining direction, (d) marking critical features, (e) controlling frustration, and (f) demonstration. Michael Zuniga, Daphnée Simard 144 classroom management, and undirected segments, typically occurring at the beginning and end of class and between activities, as down time. Piloting of the grid and interrater coding were performed. Following rec- ommendations outlined in Cone and Foster (2006), 20% of filmed data was dou- ble scored using the observation grid. Therefore, the first 90-minute observation for each individual teacher was viewed and coded separately and then com- pared. 95% of the observed events were coded identically by both raters. After validating the grid, the researcher coded the remaining 52 hours of observation. 4.3. Data analysis Since our study is descriptive in nature, the data were calculated as the percent- age of time attributable to the task categories presented in Table 2 (e.g., Fazio & Lyster, 1998; Spada & Fröhlich, 1995).3 In order to investigate more specifically the extent to which the ESL and FSL groups use interaction-friendly instructional practices, we created an interaction favorability index, using the binary system presented in Table 3. Table 3 Values used to create the interaction favorability index General focus of attention Interaction Information flow Goals Setting Score Rank Student-cente- red (+) Collaborative (+) Required (+) Convergent (+) Pairs (+) 5 4 Group (=) 4 4 Class (–) 3 3 Optional (–) Convergent (+) Pairs (+) 3 3 Group (=) 2 3 Class (–) 1 3 Divergent (–) Pairs (+) 1 3 Group (=) 0 2 Class (–) -1 2 Individual (–) Questions (+) Divergent (–) (–) -1 2 No question (–) Divergent (–) (–) -3 1 Teacher-cente- red (–) Dialogic (+) Bilateral (+) Divergent (–) Class (–) -1 2 Traditional (–) Unilateral (–) Divergent (–) Class (–) -5 1 As shown in the table, each task characteristic was assigned a weight ac- cording to whether it creates a condition that is favorable (+1) or unfavorable (- 1) to the generation of interactionally modified input and output (e.g., student- 3 As rightfully mentioned by Loewen (2004), the independence of observation assumption is often violated in SLA studies, “which can lead to type I errors, overestimating significant differences in the data” (p. 171). The nature of the data analyzed in our study, like in other observational studies, does not meet assumptions for statistical tests commonly used to determine group independence. We therefore do not make claims about the statistical sig- nificance of our findings and keep our interpretation strictly as descriptive. Observing the interactive qualities of L2 instructional practices in ESL and FSL classrooms 145 centered activity (+1), teacher-centered activity (-1)). For participant structure, a neutral weight (= 0) was assigned to the “group” setting, placing its value be- tween that of pair and class work. The scores were calculated and the following ranks were assigned: Category 1 (not interactive) was assigned to scores of -5 to -4. Category 2 (not very interactive) represents scores between -3 and -1. Cate- gory 3 (interactive) includes scores falling between 0 and 2. And finally, Category 4 (very interactive) was assigned to scores above 3. The higher categories are more favorable to the generation of interactionally modified input and output. Finally, in order to obtain a general indicator of the level of interactivity of the ESL and FLS corpora, an interaction favorability index was then calculated as the weighted average of the negotiation categories using the following formula, where N represents the total number of minutes allocated to tasks and activities from each category: ((4 X N) + (3 X N) + (2 X N) + (1 X N)) Total number of minutes of observation Scores in this interactivity index can range from 1 to 4, whereby a sore of 1 indicates a class composed exclusively of traditional teaching and individual seat-work allowing for little or no interaction; and a score of 4 signals a class entirely characterized by tasks and activities requiring an exchange of infor- mation in the pair or group setting. Scores falling at the extremes of such a scale depict an unlikely scenario. One would rather expect most classes to fall some- where in between the two, with increasing scores indicating passage from di- vergent, noncollaborative environments to convergent, interactive environ- ments facilitating information exchange in smaller group and pair settings. 5. Results We first present the results obtained for total classroom time and then per tar- get language. We then provide the results for the interaction favorability index. 5.1. Global results To gain a global portrait of class time usage, we initially broke down the 63.8 hours (3828 minutes) of total FSL and ESL classroom observation into minutes and percentage of total observation time dedicated to student-centered activity time (SAT), teacher-centered activity time (TAT), class business and down time. Those results are presented in Table 4. Overall, the table shows that 47% of classroom time was devoted to student-centered activity as opposed to the 30% Michael Zuniga, Daphnée Simard 146 devoted to teacher-centered activity. Class management and downtime respec- tively accounted for 16 % and 8% of total classroom time. Table 4 Global breakdown of classroom activity Activity Minutes % of total class time Student-centered activity 1777 47 Teacher-center activity 1135 30 Class management 608 16 Downtime 303 8 Total class time 3823 100 Next, we wanted to obtain information regarding each language teaching context. The results are presented in Table 5. While the data show that the teachers in our study gave preference to student-centered activity when plan- ning their courses, the ESL classes (52%) were nearly 20% more student-cen- tered that then FSL sections (41%). Teacher-centered activity was the second most common activity, with FSL classes (38%) coming in at 72% more teacher- centered than ESL classes (22%). ESL classes spent about 20% of class time on class management, while only 14% of FSL class time was spent on such activity. Finally, both settings lost about 8% of the class to down time. Table 5 Global breakdown of classroom activity according to target language Activity ESL FSL Minutes Percentage Minutes Percentage Student-centered activity 1008 52 769 41 Teacher-centered activity 427 22 708 38 Class management 350 20 258 14 Down time 165 8 143 8 Total class time 1950 100 1878 100 Note. FSL = French as a second language; ESL = English as a second language To create a portrait of the 29.3 hours of observed student-centered activ- ity, we first broke the events down according to the four variables shown to in- fluence interactivity and negotiation: participant distribution, information flow, goal orientation, setting. Those data are displayed in Table 6. Its inspection shows that collaborative tasks (67%) were used by the teachers in the corpus about twice as frequently as individual ones (33%). Among the collaborative tasks, only a minority required an exchange of information (13%). Of those in- formation-gap activities, 20% were conducted in pairs, 59% in small groups and 21% with the entire class. Optional-exchange tasks were the most common Observing the interactive qualities of L2 instructional practices in ESL and FSL classrooms 147 type, occupying 57% of the student-centered activity time. Among these tasks, a clear majority (81%) were convergent, that is, tasks where students work collab- oratively to solve a problem or reach a common goal. Convergent optional-ex- change tasks were most commonly conducted in a group setting (84%), followed by the pair setting (15%). Convergent tasks conducted at the level of the class were almost nonexistent. Only a slim 19% of the optional-exchange tasks were divergent in nature. Unlike its convergent counterpart, divergent tasks (62%) tended to be conducted in the “whole class” setting (e.g., oral presentations), with only a minority conducted in groups (37%) and pairs (1%). As for individual tasks, almost all events (90%) allowed students to seek help and ask questions. Table 6 Breakdown of student-centered activity Participant distribution Information flow Goals Setting Minutes % of SAT Individual (611 min.) Questions Divergent Individual 571 32.1 No questions Divergent Individual 40 1.0 Collective (1166 min.) Required (154 min.) Convergent Pairs 28 1.6 Group 91 5.1 Class 35 2.0 Optional (1012 min.) Convergent (822 min.) Pairs 129 7.2 Group 687 38.17 Class 6 0.3 Divergent (190 min.) Pairs 2 0.1 Group 70 4.0 Class 118 6.7 Total 1777 100 Note. SAT = student-centered activity time. We then broke down the same 29.3 hours of student-centered class time according to the language teaching context, that is, ESL and FSL. Those data are displayed in Table 7. The data show that, among the student-centered activity, FSL classes (45%) had about 70% more individual work than the ESL classes (26%). During most of the ESL and all of the FSL individual activities, students were allowed to seek assistance. Nearly three quarters of the ESL SAT (74%) and half of the FLS SAT (55%) were collaborative in nature. Recall that convergent, required-exchange tasks were among the most favorable to interaction. Only about 13% of ESL SAT and 3% of FSL SAT fit into this category. Among the inter- action-friendly required-exchange tasks, most (63%) were conducted in the group setting in both languages. Convergent optional-exchange tasks were the most common task type for both ESL (52%) and FSL (38%), and among those task, 83% of the ESL and 84% of the FSL were conducted in groups. Finally, the divergent optional-exchange tasks were the least common collaborative task for Michael Zuniga, Daphnée Simard 148 the ESL group, occupying about 9% of the SAT, and the second least common in FSL at 13%. Unlike the other collaborative segments, these activities were typi- cally conducted in the class setting. Table 7 Breakdown of student-centered activity according to target language (%) Interactivity Information flow Goals Participant distribution ESL SAT FSL SAT Individual Questions Divergent Individual 22 45 No questions Divergent Individual 4 0 Total individual 26 45 Collaborative Required Convergent Pairs 3 0 Group 7 3 Class 3 0 Optional Convergent Pairs 9 5 Group 43 33 Class 0 1 Divergent Pairs 0 0 Group 4 4 Class 5 9 Total collaborative 74 55 Grand total 100 100 Note. SAT = student-centered activity time; FSL = French as a second language; ESL = English as a sec- ond language. Recall that teacher-centered activity characterized about 22% of the ESL and 38% of the FSL total observation time. To gain an indication of the quality of this time with regard to interaction, we classified events as either traditional or dialogic. Table 8 offers a breakdown of this activity for total time and for each target language context. A clear majority (88%) of teacher-centered activity was collaborative and dialogic in nature, while traditional teaching approaches, whose discourse is characterized by a unilateral flow of information, were rather uncommon (12%) within the corpus. With regard to language context, the dia- logic approach was more common in the FSL (93%) than the ESL (80%) setting. Unexpectedly, while there was less teacher-fronted activity in the ESL settings, those ESL interventions were more traditional than the FSL ones. Table 8 Breakdown of teacher-centered activity according to target language Type Discourse pattern Minutes % of TAT % of ESL TAT % of FSL TAT Teacher-centered (1087 min.) Traditional 137 12 20 7 Dialogic 998 88 80 93 Total 1135 100 100 100 Note. TAT= Teacher-centered activity time; FSL = French as a second language; ESL = English as a second language. Observing the interactive qualities of L2 instructional practices in ESL and FSL classrooms 149 5.2. Interaction favorability index results Following the procedure presented in the methodology section, the task types were regrouped according to the interaction favorability rankings, then the num- ber of minutes and the percentage of the total teaching time dedicated to each category were calculated, as presented in Table 9. Only a small minority of the total teaching time (4%) was considered very interactive, that is, dedicated to tasks con- sidered most favorable to negotiation. About a third of the teaching time (29%) was interactive, and therefore moderately favorable, while a majority was coded as not very interactive (60%) and not very favorable to negotiation. Finally, only a small portion of the teaching time (6%) was characterized as noninteractive. Table 9 Interaction favorability index for combined ESL and FSL groups Category Task types Minutes % of teaching time 4 Very interactive: required-exchange in pairs, groups 119 4% 3 Interactive: required-exchange as a class, convergent optional-ex- change in pairs and groups and as a class, and divergent optional ex- change in pairs 859 29% 2 Not very interactive: divergent optional exchange in groups and as a class, individual tasks with questions, dialogic teaching 1757 60% 1 Not interactive: individual tasks without questions, traditional teaching 177 6% Index 2.29 2912 100% Using the formula presented in the methodology section, the weighted average of the negotiation-favorability categories was calculated, with a result- ing score of 2.29/4. The index allows us to compare the global interactivity of the observed ESL and FSL groups, whose results are displayed in Table 10. A cou- ple of interesting trends emerge from the data presented in the table. First, while Category 4 activity (very interactive) was rather uncommon for both groups, ESL classes benefitted from somewhat more interaction-friendly tasks (7%) than did their FSL counterparts (1%). The gap was more pronounced for the interactive Category 3 activities, which were nearly twice a frequent in ESL (39%) than in FSL (20%). Another stark contrast was observed within the not- very-interactive Category 2 activities. The FSL classes tended to be much more teacher-centered, with nearly twice as much time dedicated to teacher-cen- tered dialogic teaching (44%) than in ESL classes (24%). The same was true for individual tasks with questions, which were about 50% more frequent in FSL (24%) than ESL (15%). Among the Category 1 activities, however, the ESL data had about 60% more traditional teaching than that of FSL. Additionally, while there were no FSL individual task events without questions, about 3% of the ESL Michael Zuniga, Daphnée Simard 150 data was characterized by such activity. The results offer an interaction favora- bility index score of 2.44 for the ESL classes and 2.19 for the FSL classes, suggest- ing that, while both classes fall into the middle of the interactive continuum, the ESL classes we observed were about 8.3% more favorable to interaction and the resulting modified input and output. Recall that according to our index interpre- tation, a sore of 1 would indicate a class characterized by exclusive use of tradi- tional teaching and individual seat-work allowing for little or no interaction, while a score of 4 would point to exclusive use of tasks and activities requiring an ex- change of information in the pair or group setting. Inspection of the index distri- bution (see Table 10) shows that the .25 difference can be explained by a greater frequency of student-centered, convergent tasks in the ESL setting and a heavier reliance on teacher-centered practices and individual work in the FSL classes. Table 10 Interaction favorability index according to target language Category and task type ESL FSL % % 4 Required-exchange tasks (pairs) 2 0 Required-exchange tasks (groups) 5 1 Total 7 1 3 Required-exchange tasks (class) 2 0 Convergent optional-exchange tasks 37 20 Divergent tasks (pairs) 0 0 Total 39 20 2 Divergent optional-exchange tasks (group) 3 2 Divergent optional-exchange tasks (class) 3 5 Individual task with questions 15 24 Dialogic teaching 24 44 Total 45 75 1 Individual task no questions 3 0 Traditional teaching 6 4 Total 9 4 Grand total 100 100 Negotiation index 2.44 2.19 Note. FSL = French as a second language; ESL = English as a second language. 6. Discussion The objective of the present study was to gain insight into the types of instructional practices that are being exploited in contemporary ESL and FSL classrooms, with regard to their favorability to the generation of interactionally modified input and output. We formulated the following research question: To what extent do ESL and FSL second language teachers in a public secondary school setting use instructional practices believed to promote interactionally modified input and output? Observing the interactive qualities of L2 instructional practices in ESL and FSL classrooms 151 In order to answer our research question, we created an observation tool allowing us to rank 63.8 hours of observed ESL and FSL classroom activity ac- cording to a set of empirically tested factors shown to promote interactionally modified input and output, that is, general direction of attention, interactivity, information flow, goal structure and setting. This tool allowed us to rank tasks according to what we called an interaction favorability index containing four cat- egories: not interactive, not very interactive, interactive, very interactive. Globally the results showed that there was about 60% more student-cen- tered contexts (47%) than teacher-centered contexts (30%), with almost a quar- ter (24%) of the class time lost to class management and down time. This stands in contrast with Fazio and Lyster (1998), who found that 78% of French submer- sion classes and 62% of French immersion classes (from the same Montreal re- gion context as the present study) were characterized by teacher-centered ac- tivity. Such differences signal a trend toward increased student-centered activity in L2 classrooms. With regard to target language, student-centered and teacher- centered activity for the FSL classes were more evenly distributed, with 41% for student-centered and 38% for teacher-centered activity, while in the ESL classes 52% of classroom time was devoted to student-centered activity and only 22% to teacher-centered activity. Examination of the distribution of practices according to the interaction favorability index showed that only a slim minority of teaching time (4%) was dedicated to the most interactive tasks, (i.e., collaborative information-ex- change tasks in pairs and groups), and nearly 85% of that Category 4 activity occurred in the ESL context. Only 1% of the FSL data was characterized as very interactive. Among the observed required information-exchange tasks were in- terviews and various versions of the game 20 Questions, where learners had to ask questions and guess the word or expression that another learner had in mind. Let us recall the one-way-two-way information-gap distinction. The tasks we observed were are all characterized by a one-way exchange in that the target information flowed unilaterally from Participant A to Participant B. We did not observe a single two-way information-gap task, the most interactive of activi- ties, in either the ESL or FSL corpora (e.g., spot-the-differences). Interactive (Category 3) tasks (e.g., convergent optional-exchange tasks) occupied about a third (29%) of the total teaching time. While these tasks do not require an exchange of information, they are interactive because the con- vergent nature of their goal structures push interaction and favor communica- tion more than divergent ones (Duff, 1986). The Category 3 tasks we observed include written comprehension and production tasks, brainstorming, role-plays, reading dialogues, arranging and illustrating images, and creating a brochure. The collaborative nature of such tasks was apparent in our data, as nearly 85% Michael Zuniga, Daphnée Simard 152 were conducted in the group setting. With regard to target language differences, these interactive types of tasks were favored by the ESL classes, whose learners benefitted from 75% more of such activity than did FSL learners. The not-very-interactive (Category 2) tasks characterized the majority (60%) of the classroom activity we observed, among which about one third (30%) was individual tasks with questions and nearly two thirds (60%) was teacher-centered dialogic teaching. In contrast with Categories 3 and 4, the FSL group accounted for the majority (63%) of the Category 2 activity. Additionally, 61% of the individual tasks with questions and 66% of the teacher-centered di- alogic activity occurred within the FSL setting. The most commonly observed individual activities included written comprehension and production, listening comprehension and sentence diagramming. Dialogic teaching was roughly di- vided between class discussions, explicit presentation of form, correction of written production and structural exercises, and comprehension activities. The dialogic approach used during these activities led students with varying degree of explicitness to create hypotheses using scaffolding functions, which added an element of interactivity to activities that would otherwise fit squarely into the description of traditional teaching approaches. Finally, only about 6% of the observed practices were categorized as not interactive (Category 1), and a majority (70%) of this observation was attributed to ESL classes. The traditional-teaching practices consisted of correction, explicit presentation of form, and oral and written comprehension activities. Similar in nature to the practices observed in the dialogic context, these traditional prac- tices differed in that the students were not invited to participate in the interac- tion. Their role was simply to take notes. Our decision to create a new observation tool rather than use a previously validated instrument such as the COLT was motivated by pragmatic reasons: In ad- dition to finding an answer to our research questions, our objective was to create a macro-level scale of classroom interactivity based on empirically tested variables, with instructional segments as the unit of analysis. Such a tool—not requiring the formal training in discourse analysis needed for the COLT—could be useful to ESL and FSL teachers and curriculum advisors as a relatively simple, valid procedure for assessing the interactivity of current classroom practices and increasing the inter- activity of current or future curriculum. No other published classroom observation tool responds to this need. However, from a research perspective, one of the con- sequences of creating such a tool is that the results are not directly comparable to those of previous studies using validated instruments. We therefore must deter- mine whether our results reflect the trends observed in the previous studies. The sample of ESL and FSL classrooms observed for the current study scored 2.29/4 on the interaction favourability index (i.e., ESL and FSL), suggesting that Observing the interactive qualities of L2 instructional practices in ESL and FSL classrooms 153 the classes were not very interactive. These results seem to corroborate previ- ous findings using the COLT, which placed most observed classes in the middle of the experiential-analytical continuum (e.g., Allen & Carroll, 1988; Allen, Swain, Harley, & Cummins, 1990; Dicks, 1992; Fazio & Lyster, 1998). By the same token, the current results suggest that language classes, albeit not very interac- tive, are becoming more student-centered than those observed in pervious re- search (i.e., Fazio & Lyster, 1998). Comparison of the target language contexts showed that the ESL classes were about 8% more interactive (2.44/4) than their FSL counterparts (2.19/4). These results seem to contradict those from Frölich, Spada, and Allen (1985), who, observing schools in the Toronto area, found that teachers of ESL, the dominant language outside the classroom, offered fewer of the most highly interactive learning situations. They reasoned that Toronto ESL teachers might focus more on form in the classroom because students have am- ple opportunity to benefit from a richly communicative environment outside the classroom. In the case of our observations, French is the dominant language outside the classroom. For the same reasons, this might suggest that FSL teach- ers tend to focus more on language code in the classroom than ESL teachers. From this perspective, our results would seem to be in line with those from the Frölich, Spada and Allen study. Analyses of the index categories suggest that globally the observed lan- guage classes would benefit from reducing the 60% of time dedicated to weak interactive practices (i.e., Category 2: divergent optional exchange in groups and as a class, individual tasks with questions, dialogic teaching) and increasing the 29% dedicated to interactive (i.e., Category 3: required-exchange as a class, con- vergent optional-exchange in pairs and groups and as a class, and divergent op- tional exchange in pairs) and the 4% dedicated to very interactive (i.e., Category 4: required-exchange in pairs and groups) practices. These recommendations would be even more beneficial to the observed FSL classes, which allocated a generous 75% of class time to not very interactive practices and only 20% and 1% to interactive and very interactive practices respectively. 7. Conclusion The objective of this observational study was to compare the interactive nature of the instructional practices observed in ESL and FSL classrooms. Unlike previous classroom observation research, this study examined the instructional sequences used by eight teachers during 60 hours of recorded classroom activity according to five empirically tested factors shown to influence the generation of interaction- ally modified input and output. While the result show that the ESL classes were more student-centered and offered conditions that were more favorable to SLA Michael Zuniga, Daphnée Simard 154 through interaction than did the FSL classes, the global results suggest that both the ESL and FSL classes were generally not very interactive. Indeed, nearly 70% of the total observed classroom practices was dedicated to individual seat-work and teacher-centered activity. Such a lack of interactivity more than a quarter century after the advent of the communicative language teaching approaches suggests that further re- search is needed to probe practitioners’ knowledge of task characteristics re- lated to SLA through interaction. For example, what are practitioners’ percep- tions of collaborative tasks exploiting the gap principle? Are they perceived as valuable, difficult to elaborate, unauthentic, unwieldy in the classroom setting? Answers to such questions would offer insight into how one might go about in- creasing the level interactivity of L2 classrooms. Another avenue for future research would be to determine whether the five macro-factors investigated in the present study can predict the outcomes of the micro-factors in Part B of the COLT. The existence of such a relationship would suggest that teachers could use the scheme as an accurate and efficient way to assess the communicative nature of their pedagogical practices, without having to resort to costly discourse analyses. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the volume editor, Hos- sein Nassaji, for their insightful comments on the previous version of this article. We would also like to thank Daphnée Simard and Gladys Jean for providing us the corpus data used in the present study. Observing the interactive qualities of L2 instructional practices in ESL and FSL classrooms 155 References Allen, P., & Carroll, S. (1988). Analytic and experiential dimensions in core French classrooms. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 45, 43-64. Allen, P., Fröhlich, M., & Spada, N. (1984). The communicative orientation of lan- guage teaching: An observation scheme. In J. Handscombe, R. A. Orem, & B. P. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL ’83 (pp. 231-252). Washington, DC: TESOL. Allen, P., Swain, M., Harley, B., & Cummins, J. (1990). Aspects of classroom treat- ment: Toward a more comprehensive view of second language education. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of second language proficiency (pp. 57-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Antón, M. (1999). A learner-centered classroom: Sociocultural perspectives on teacher- learner interaction in the second language classroom. The Mod- ern Language Journal, 83, 303-18. Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treat- ment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46. Cone, J. D., & Foster, S. L. (2006). Dissertations and theses from start to finish: Psychology and related fields (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psy- chology Association. Dicks, J. (1992). Analytic and experiential features of three French immersion pro- grams: Early, middle and late. Canadian Modern Language Review, 49, 37-59. Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). “Information Gap” tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly, 20, 305-325. Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Talking task to task. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 147-81). Rowley, MA: Newbury. Duff, P., & Polio, C. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 74, 154-166. Eckerth, J. (2009). Negotiated interaction in the L2 classroom. Language Teach- ing, 42, 109-30. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51, 281-318. Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acqui- sition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285-301. Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449-491. Fanselow, J. (1977). The treatment of error in oral work. Foreign Language An- nals, 10, 583-593. Fazio, L., & Lyster, R. (1998). Immersion and submersion classrooms: A compar- ison of instructional practices in language arts. Journal of Multilingual and Michael Zuniga, Daphnée Simard 156 Multicultural Development, 19, 303-317. Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Ap- plied Linguistics, 19, 1-23. Foster, P., & Otha, A. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26, 402-430. Frölich, M., Spada, N., & Allen, P. (1985). Differences in the communicative ori- entation of L2 classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 27-57. García Mayo M. P., & Lazaro Ibarrola, A. (2015). Do children negotiate for mean- ing in task-based interaction? Evidence from CLIL and EFL settings, System, 54, 40-54. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.12.001 Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second lan- guage acquisition (2nd ed.) (pp. 180-206). New-York: Routledge. Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. (1998). The role of input and interaction in second language acquisition: Introduction to the special issue. The Modern Lan- guage Journal, 82, 299-307. Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-based interactions in class- room and laboratory settings. Language Learning, 55, 575-611. Gass, S., & Varonis, E. M. (1985). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative nego- tiation of meaning. In S. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second lan- guage acquisition (pp. 149-62). Rowley, MA: Newbury. Lee, J. F. (2000). Tasks and communicating in the language classroom. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Loewen, S. (2003). Variation in the frequency and characteristics of incidental focus on form. Language Teaching Research, 7, 315-345. Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 361-377). Ox- ford: Oxford University Press. Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, second-language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259-278). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
 Long, M. H. (1983a). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177-194. Long, M. H. (1983b). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acqui- sition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bahatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language Observing the interactive qualities of L2 instructional practices in ESL and FSL classrooms 157 acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York, NY: Academic Press. Long, M. H., & Sato, C. (1983). Foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers questions. In H. Selinger & M. Long (Eds.), Classroom-oriented re- search on second language acquisition (pp. 268-285). Rowley, MA: Newbury. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotia- tion of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66. Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557-587. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2011). Research methodologies in second language ac- quisition. London: Blackwell. McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learn- ers’ response on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79-103. McDonough, K. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity verbs in L2 English. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational inter- action in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 323-338). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ministère de l’Éducation du Québec (2006). Programme de formation de l’école québé- coise. Enseignement secondaire, premier cycle. Québec: Ministère de l’Éducation. Mitchell, R., Parkinson, B., & Johnstone, R. (1981). The foreign language classroom: An observational study. Stirling: Department of Education, University of Stirling. Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., & Van Lier, L. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in conver- sational and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 377-405. Pica, T. (1987). Second language acquisition, social interaction, and the class- room. Applied Linguistics, 8, 3-21. Pica, T. (1994). Questions from the language classroom: Research perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 49-79. Pica, T. (1996). Second language learning through interaction: Multiple perspec- tives. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12, 1-22. Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in the communicative lan- guage classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 115-132). Rowley, MA: Newbury. Pica, T., Doughty, C., & Young, R. (1986). Making input comprehensible: Do inter- actional modifications help? ITL, Review of Applied Linguistics, 72, 1-25. Polio, C., & Duff, P. (1994). Teachers’ language use in university foreign language classrooms: A qualitative analysis of English and target language alternation. Michael Zuniga, Daphnée Simard 158 The Modern Language Journal, 78, 313-326. Polio, C., & Gass, S. M. (1998). The role of interaction in native speaker comprehen- sion of nonnative speaker speech. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356. Quivy, R., & Campenhoudt, L. (1988). Manuel de recherche en sciences sociales. Paris: Dunod. Sato, C. (1986). Conversation and interlanguage development: Rethinking the connection. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second lan- guage acquisition (pp. 23-45). Rowley, MA: Newbury. Seliger, H. (1977). Does practice make perfect? A study of interaction patterns and L2 competence. Language Learning, 27, 264-278. Simard, D., & Jean, G. (2011). An exploration of L2 teachers’ use of pedagogical interventions devised to draw L2 learners’ attention to form. Language Learning, 61, 759-785. Spada, N., & M. Fröhlich. (1995). Communicative orientation of language teach- ing observation scheme: Coding conventions and applications. Sydney: NCELTR, Macquarie University. Stern, H. H. (1990). Analysis and experience as variables in second language peda- gogy. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of bilingual proficiency (pp. 93-109). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M., & Carroll, S. (1987). The immersion observation study. In B. Harley, P. Allen, J. Cummins & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of bilingual profi- ciency. Final Report (Vol. II, pp. 190-263). Toronto: Modern Language Centre. Takashima, H., & Ellis, R. (1999). Output enhancement and the acquisition of the past tense. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Learning a second language through interac- tion (pp. 173-188). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Ullmann, R., & Geva, E. (1982). The target language observation scheme (TALOS). York region board of education, core French evaluation project (Unpublished report). Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, Canada. Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1985). Nonnative/nonnative conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71-90. Wood, D., Brunner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solv- ing. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 17, 89-100. Yuqin Zhao, S., & Bitchener, J. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher-learner and learner-learner interactions. System, 35, 431-447. Zyzik, E., & Polio, C. (2008). Incidental focus on form in Spanish literature courses. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 50-73.