David: L3 development

In determining language development, it was critical that spontaneous data be elicited from the learners. However, due to the risk attributed with spontaneous data production, it was critical that posttests include targeted structures. Table 45 presents the global results (bottom row) and also presents the results for each task at Times 1 and 2 and their combined totals in the last column. The first column for Time presents the total number of correct responses out of the

total number of LREs and the second column presents the corresponding percentage.

Furthermore, the table presents the global results (shown in the final row) for the four tasks. There are several interesting findings. First, the global results show that David responded to 25/34 items from lexis-based LREs correctly (74%) and responded to 80/84 items from form- based items correctly (95%) on the posttests. The global results suggest that David performed equally well over time. At Time 1, David recalled 42/46 questions on the posttest correctly (91%) and at Time 2, he correctly answered to 63/72 questions (88%). However, David was more consistent for items that originated in form-based LREs, namely, 98% and 94% at Times 1 and 2. The accuracy of items derived from lexis-based LREs was higher at Time 1 (81%) than at Time 2 (67%).

Table 45: David and L3 development

Time 1 Time 2 Total

n (%) n (%) n (%) Deci- task Lexis 2/4 (50.0) ¾ (75.0) 5/8 (62.5) Form 5/5 (100) ½ (50.0) 6/7 (85.7) Total 7/9 (77.8) 4/6 (66.7) 11/15 (73.3) Story- task Lexis 11/11 (100) 6/8 (75.0) 17/19 (89.5) Form 2/3 (66.7) 8/9 (88.9) 10/12 (83.3) Total 13/14 (92.9) 14/17 (82.4) 27/31 (87.1) Text- task Lexis 0/0 (0.0) 0/1 90.0) 0/1 (0.0) Form 15/15 (100) 33/33 (100.0) 48/48 (100.0) Total 15/15 (100) 33/34 (97.1) 48/48 (98.0) Dict- Lexis 0/1 (0.0) 3/5 (60.0) 3/6 (50.0) Task Form 7/7 (100) 9/10 (90.0) 16/17 (94.1) Total 7/8 (87.5) 12/15 (80.0) 19/23 (82.6) Global Lexis 13/16 (81.3) 12/18 (66.7) 25/34 (73.5) Form 29/30 (96.7) 51/54 (94.4) 80/84 (95.2) 42/46 (91.3) 63/72 (87.5) 105/117 (89.7)

Some differences across the tasks were also observed. The task with the highest percentage of correct responses was the text reconstruction task (98%), followed by the story completion tasks (87%), by the dictogloss task (83%) and, lastly, the decision-making task

(73%). Given the small number of items, differences across times 1 and 2 were not taken into account.

The first analysis combined the posttest results for correctly and incorrectly resolved LREs thereby masking the relationship between patterns of resolution and posttest scores. The subsequent analysis discriminated between items that were created based on correctly resolved LREs and items that were based on incorrectly resolved or unresolved LREs. Table 46 first presents the results for the number of correct answers on the posttest (PT) and the total number of LREs that had been correctly resolved during the task (LREs), (i.e., PT/LREs). Below, the total number of correct answers on the posttest and the total number of incorrectly resolved LREs during the task are also presented.

Table 46: Posttest scores: Correct responses Decision-

making Story Reconstruct Dictogloss Total n % n % n % n % n % Correct Lexis 4/4 (100) 13/14 (92.9) 1/1 100 4/5 (80) 22/24 (92) Form ¾ (75) 7/8 (87.5) 36/36 100 11/12 (91.7) 57/60 (95) Total 7/8 (87.5) 20/22 (90.9) 37/37 100 15/17 (88.2) 79/84 (94) Incorrect Lexis ¼ (25) 4/5 (80) 0/0 – 3/5 (60) 8/14 (57) Form 3/3 (100) ¾ (75) 10/11 (90.9) 1/1 (100) 17/20 (85) Total 4/7 (57.1) 7/9 (77.8) 10/11 (90.9) 4/6 (66.7) 25/33 (75.8)

The findings in Table 46 indicate that David performed better on items that were created from correctly resolved LREs. The last column shows the total for the four tasks and indicates a high accuracy: 22/24 of lexis-based LREs (92%) and 57/60 of form-based LREs (95%) were correctly recalled. The analysis also considered items that were either incorrectly resolved or abandoned during the interaction. A surprisingly high accuracy rate on the posttest was uncovered, namely, 25/34 items were accurately recalled despite being incorrectly resolved

during task performance and the accuracy rates were highest for items based on form-based LREs. Overall, there was a greater percentage of correctly recalled items that originated in the text reconstruction tasks.

In introducing language development, the importance of eliciting spontaneous data was discussed. Therefore, a second measure of L3 development was employed in the study:

spontaneous use of language during individual recordings. L3 gains during the oral component of the individual posttest were operationalized as: LREs initiated by the focal participants during task performance and incorporated into spontaneous data production. The results show that David’s spontaneous use of lexis and form that was the subject of an LRE during the pedagogical tasks was quite low. A total of six items originating in lexis-based LREs and two items from form-based LREs were incorporated by David into his answers during the individual recordings. Example 24 shows a lexis-based LRE for the word ‘to surf’.

Example 24: Task performance lexis-based LRE 70 Felip: Ce matin en navegando en

[This morning while surfing on] 71 David: Surfer

[Surfing] 72 Felip: Non

[No]

73 David: Nager, non [Swimming, no] 74 Felip: E… argh

[E… argh]

75 David: Je ne me souviens pas [I don’t remember]

Although they were not quite able to find resolution at this moment, they identified the gap during the second component of the task which consisted of comparing the two versions of the text. This is illustrated in Example 25:

Example 25: Identification of the gap

76 David: Ce matin je naviguais [This morning I was surfing] 77 Felip: Ah

[Ah]

78 David: Ca c’est la réponse de le mot que nous allons [That is the answer for the word that we will need]

During his fourth posttest, David spontaneously produced the following sentence which included the target item ‘to surf’ which had been produced during the dictogloss task, as

illustrated in Example 26:

Example 26: Integration of a lexical item

Et pour ça, et ça c’est la que… um… ça c’est la que je j’essayer de de naviguer a l’internet et il ya beaucoup de situation que je ne peux pas entrer et c’est très fâché, je me fâche.

[And for this reason, and it’s the…e….I try to surf on the internet and there are many sites that I am not able to access and that is very upsetting, I get upset.]

This example illustrates that although David was unable to produce the item during the task – the LRE is evidence of this – which began in the first component of the task and was resolved in the second component of the task. This item was later incorporated into his answer during his individual posttest, a sign of internalization. The incorporation of the French

equivalent of the word ‘to surf’ provides further evidence of L3 development in the microgenetic domain.