DOCSLIB.ORG

The Effect of the Use of the Students' First Language in Grammar Instruction: a Report on Student Preferences and Performance in the Target Language" (2016)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Effect of the Use of the Students' First Language in Grammar Instruction: a Report on Student Preferences and Performance in the Target Language Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2016 The ffecE t of the Use of the Students' First Language in Grammar Instruction: A Report on Student Preferences and Performance in the Target Language Katherine Mickel Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons Recommended Citation Mickel, Katherine, "The Effect of the Use of the Students' First Language in Grammar Instruction: A Report on Student Preferences and Performance in the Target Language" (2016). LSU Master's Theses. 2520. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/2520 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE EFFECT OF THE USE OF THE STUDENTS’ FIRST LANGUAGE IN GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION: A REPORT ON STUDENT PREFERENCES AND PERFORMANCE IN THE TARGET LANGUAGE A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in The Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures by Katherine K. Mickel B.A., The University of Georgia, 2013 May 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It was the thoughtful contributions from various people along the way that truly made the successful completion of this thesis possible. First and foremost, I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my mentor, professor, friend, and the brilliant chair of my committee, Dr. Dorian Dorado. Your constant support and encouragement kept me positive, and your genuine interest in my study made it that much more enjoyable to complete. I hope I can one day offer someone the same kindness and guidance that you have shown me. I would also like to give my sincere thanks to Dr. Rafael Orozco and Dr. Andrea Morris for their insightful feedback. I feel incredibly thankful to have been able to work with such great people and scholars, and I am a better researcher because of your efforts. I would also like to thank Ms. Peggy McNeil for her flexibility throughout the data gathering process and for allowing me to conduct my research with her classes, without which none of this would have been possible. I would also like to extend additional thanks to Dr. Janet McDonald and Dr. Mike Dettinger for generously contributing their time to work with me in SPSS. Being a stranger to statistics at the start of this research, I am very grateful to have had your help and expertise. In addition, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the many friends who have graciously supported me throughout this process, especially Gabi, Monika, Kristina, Andrea, Nano and Rachel. To Gabi, words cannot even express the depth of respect, admiration, and appreciation I have for you. To Seth, thank you for continually encouraging me, but also helping me remember to relax. With you I knew I could get through even the toughest days. To all of you, thank you for keeping me sane! Finally, thank you to my family for your continued support. To my mom and dad, your unending love and encouragement has gotten me where I am today. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ ii LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. viii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Brief overview of L1 and input in FL classrooms ........................................................... 3 1.2 Performance vs. competence ........................................................................................... 6 1.2.1 Explicit and implicit knowledge ............................................................................... 8 1.3 Direct object pronouns (DOs) and indirect object pronouns (IOs) ................................ 10 CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................................................................ 15 2.1 Theoretical background .................................................................................................. 15 2.1.1 Input-based approaches ............................................................................................ 17 2.2 Age and explicit instruction ............................................................................................ 26 2.3 The native language vs. the target language .................................................................. 29 2.3.1 Proponents of L1 use ............................................................................................... 29 2.3.2 Opponents of L1 use ............................................................................................... 33 2.4 Student opinions regarding instructor language use in the classroom ............................ 36 2.5 The use of the L1 and the TL in the foreign language classroom ................................... 38 2.6 Individual differences ..................................................................................................... 47 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 50 3.1 Research questions .......................................................................................................... 50 3.2 Setting ............................................................................................................................. 51 3.3 Overview of the study ..................................................................................................... 52 3.3.1 Rationale for grammar topic .................................................................................... 53 3.3.2 Rationale for language level .................................................................................... 54 3.4 Participants ...................................................................................................................... 55 3.4.1 The students ............................................................................................................. 55 3.4.2 The instructor ........................................................................................................... 57 3.5 Instruments ...................................................................................................................... 58 3.5.1 Test design ............................................................................................................... 58 3.5.2 Pretest ....................................................................................................................... 61 3.5.3 Immediate posttests .................................................................................................. 61 3.5.4 Delayed posttest ....................................................................................................... 62 iii 3.5.5 Questionnaires .......................................................................................................... 62 3.5.6 Classroom observations ........................................................................................... 63 3.6 Procedures ....................................................................................................................... 64 3.6.1 Teaching procedure .................................................................................................. 64 3.6.2 Quantitative assessment procedures ........................................................................ 67 3.6.3 Qualitative assessment procedures .......................................................................... 73 3.7 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 75 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................ 76 4.1 Quantitative results ......................................................................................................... 76 4.2 Descriptive results ........................................................................................................... 76 4.3 Statistical analysis ........................................................................................................... 83 4.3.1 Preliminary analysis ................................................................................................. 83 4.3.2 Data analyses with immediate tests ......................................................................... 84 4.3.3 Discussion of immediate results .............................................................................. 86 4.3.4 Delayed posttest data analysis ................................................................................. 90 4.3.5 Discussion of delayed results ..................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MSU Working Papers in Second Language Studies Volume 7
    MSU Working Papers in Second Language Studies Volume 7, Number 1 2015 3 MSU Working Papers in SLS 2016, Vol. 7 ISBELL, RAWAL, & TIGCHELAAR – EDITORS’ MESSAGE Editors’ Message: Seventh Volume of the MSU Working Papers in Second Language Studies The Editorial Team is pleased to introduce the 7th volume of the MSU Working Papers in Second Language Studies. The Working Papers is an open-access, peer-reviewed outlet for disseminating knowledge in the field of second language (L2) research. The Working Papers additionally has a two-layered formative aim. First, we welcome research that is “rough around the edges” and provide constructive feedback in the peer review process to aid researchers in clearly and appropriately reporting their research efforts. Similarly, for scholars working through ideas in literature reviews or research proposals, the peer review process facilitates critical yet constructive exchanges leading to more refined and focused presentation of ideas. Second, we extend an opportunity to in-training or early-career scholars to lend their expertise and serve as reviewers, thereby gaining practical experience on the “other side” of academic publishing and rendering service to the field. Of course, we also value the interviews with prominent L2 researchers and book/textbook reviews we receive, which provide a useful resource for L2 scholars and teachers. We must acknowledge (and in fact are quite glad to) that without the hard work of authors and reviewers, the Working Papers would not be possible. This volume of the Working Papers features two empirical research articles, a research proposal, a literature review, and two reviews. Before introducing these articles in detail, however, we wish to reflect on the history of the Working Papers by answering a simple question: What happens once an article is published in the Working Papers? Life after Publication As an open-access journal, the Working Papers lives on the internet, freely accessible by just about anyone.
    [Show full text]
  • Sentential Switching on Teaching Grammar
    Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Fen Fakültesi Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Science Fen Bilimleri Dergisi (CFD), Cilt:36, No: 3 Özel Sayı (2015) Science Journal (CSJ), Vol. 36, No: 3 Special Issue (2015) ISSN: 1300-1949 ISSN: 1300-1949 The Effect of Intra-sentential, Inter-sentential and Tag- sentential Switching on Teaching Grammar Atefeh ABDOLLAHI1,*, Ramin RAHMANY2, & Ataollah MALEKI3 2Ph.D. of TEFL, Department of Humanities, Faculty of Teaching English and Translation, Takestan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Takestan, Iran. Received: 01.02.2015; Accepted: 05.05.2015 ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Abstract. The present study examined the comparative effect of different types of code-switching, i.e., intra- sentential, inter-sentential, and tag-sentential switching on EFL learners grammar learning and teaching. To this end, a sample of 60 Iranian female and male students in two different institutions in Qazvin was selected. They were assigned to four groups. Each group was randomly assigned to one of the afore-mentioned treatment conditions. After the experimental period, a post-test was taken from students to examine the effect of different types of code- switching on students’ learning of grammar. The results showed that the differences among the effects of the above- mentioned techniques were statistically significant. These findings can have implications for EFL learners, EFL teachers, and materials’ developers. Keywords: Code, Code switching, Inter-sentential switching, Tag-switching, Inter-sentential switching 1. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Code switching, i.e., the use of more than one language in speech, has been said to follow regular grammatical and stylistic patterns (Woolford, 1983). Patterns of code switching have been described in terms of grammatical constraints and various theoretical models have been suggested to account for such constraints.
    [Show full text]
  • Enhanced Input in LCTL Pedagogy
    Enhanced Input in LCTL Pedagogy Marilyn S. Manley Rowan University Abstract Language materials for the more-commonly-taught languages (MCTLs) often include visual input enhancement (Sharwood Smith 1991, 1993) which makes use of typographical cues like bolding and underlining to enhance the saliency of targeted forms. For a variety of reasons, this paper argues that the use of enhanced input, both visual and oral, is especially important as a tool for the less- commonly-taught languages (LCTLs). As there continues to be a scarcity of teaching resources for the LCTLs, individual teachers must take it upon themselves to incorporate enhanced input into their own self-made materials. Specific examples of how to incorpo- rate both visual and oral enhanced input into language teaching are drawn from the author’s own experiences teaching Cuzco Quechua. Additionally, survey results are presented from the author’s Fall 2010 semester Cuzco Quechua language students, supporting the use of both visual and oral enhanced input. Introduction Sharwood Smith’s input enhancement hypothesis (1991, 1993) responds to why it is that L2 learners often seem to ignore tar- get language norms present in the linguistic input they have received, resulting in non-target-like output. According to Sharwood Smith (1991, 1993), these learners may not be noticing, and therefore not consequently learning, particular target language forms due to the fact that they lack perceptual salience in the linguistic input. Therefore, in order to stimulate the intake of form as well as meaning, Sharwood Smith (1991, 1993) proposes improving the quality of language input through input enhancement, involving increasing the saliency of lin- guistic features for both visual input (ex.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Effect of Foreign Language Immersion Programs on Intercultural Sensitivity in Elementary Students
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by SHAREOK repository ASSESSING THE EFFECT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE IMMERSION PROGRAMS ON INTERCULTURAL SENSITIVITY IN ELEMENTARY STUDENTS By PHILIPPE CHARLES CORBAZ Bachelor of Arts in Psychology Oral Roberts University Tulsa, Oklahoma 2001 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE May, 2005 ASSESSING THE EFFECT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE IMMERSION PROGRAMS ON INTERCULTURAL SENSITIVITY IN ELEMENTARY STUDENTS Thesis Approved: Dr. Diane M. Montgomery Thesis Adviser Dr. Steven W. Edwards Dr. Kay S. Bull Dr. Teresa M. Bear Dr. A. Gordon Emslie Dean of the Graduate College ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my committee for their help in this endeavor, namely Dr. Diane Montgomery, Dr. Steve Edwards, Dr. Kay Bull, and Dr. Teresa Bear. I wish to extend my gratitude in particular to Dr. Diane Montgomery who has been very supportive and never too busy in times of trouble. I would also like to thank Dr. Steve Edwards for his precious help with the statistical analysis, Dr. Marie Miville (now in New York) for letting me use her excellent scale, Dr. Hull and Sally Adams for their helpful comments on my drafts, and Dr. Virginia Worley for her inspiration regarding educational leadership. I would like to thank my wife, Maria “Gina” Corbaz and my four children, Christopher, Bryan, Joshua, and Rebecca for their patience and their love. I would like to acknowledge my family in Switzerland, my mother, my sister, and my grandmother for their support and their inspiration.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relative Effects of Enhanced and Non-Enhanced Structured Input on L2 Acquisition of Spanish Past Tense
    THE RELATIVE EFFECTS OF ENHANCED AND NON-ENHANCED STRUCTURED INPUT ON L2 ACQUISITION OF SPANISH PAST TENSE by Silvia M. Peart, B.A, M.A., M.A. A Dissertation In SPANISH Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Spanish Approved Andrew P. Farley Idoia Elola Greta Gorsuch Janet Perez Susan Stein Fred Hartmeister Dean of the Graduate School May, 2008 Copyright 2008, Silvia M. Peart Texas Tech University, Silvia M. Peart, May 2008 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank first my mentor, advisor and friend, Dr. Andrew Farley. His guidance helped me learn not only the main topics of second language acquisition, but also led me to develop as a professional. It has been a pleasure to work with him these last three years. I thank him for his support this last year, his mentoring and patience. I want also to express my gratitude to Dr. Idoia Elola whose support also has been a key to my success as a doctoral student. Her encouragement and assistance during this last year has been the fuel that kept me in motion. I would like to thank Dr. Susan Stein and Dr. Beard for their friendship and their encouraging support in all my projects as a student. Finally, I would like to thank my committee for their invaluable feedback. I am also grateful to the friends I made during my career at Texas Tech University. It was also their support that encouragement that kept me on track all these years.
    [Show full text]
  • WHAT the RESEARCH SAYS ABOUT IMMERSION by Tara Williams Fortune Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition University of Minnesota
    WHAT THE RESEARCH SAYS ABOUT IMMERSION by Tara Williams Fortune Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition University of Minnesota Over nearly half a century, research on language immersion education has heralded benefits such as academic achievement, language and literacy development in two or more languages, and cognitive skills. This research also exposes some of the challenges that accompany the immersion model, with its multilayered agenda of language, literacy and intercultural skills development during subject matter learning. This chapter outlines key findings for both advantages and challenges. Benefits of Language Immersion Academic and Educational Without question, the issue investigated most often in research on language immersion education is students’ ability to perform academically on standardized tests administered in English. This question emerges again and again in direct response to stakeholder concerns that development of a language other than English not jeopardize basic schooling goals, high levels of oral and written communication skills in English, and grade‐ appropriate academic achievement. The research response to this question is longstanding and consistent. English proficient immersion students are capable of achieving as well as, and in some cases better than, non‐immersion peers on standardized measures of reading and math.i This finding applies to students from a range of socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds,ii as well as diverse cognitive and linguistic abilities.iii Moreover, academic achievement
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying Linguistic Cues That Distinguish Text Types: a Comparison of First and Second Language Speakers
    Identifying Linguistic Cues that Distinguish Text Types: A Comparison of First and Second Language Speakers Scott A. Crossley, Max M. Louwerse and Danielle S. McNamara (Mississippi State University and University of Memphis) Crossley, Scott A, Max M. Louwerse and Danielle S. McNamara. (2008). Identifying Linguistic Cues that Distinguish Text Types: A Comparison of First and Second Language Speakers. Language Research 44.2, 361-381. The authors examine the degree to which first (L1) and second language (L2) speakers of English are able to distinguish between simplified or authen- tic reading texts from L2 instructional books and whether L1 and L2 speak- ers differ in their ability to process linguistic cues related to this distinction. These human judgments are also compared to computational judgments which are based on indices inspired by cognitive theories of reading process- ing. Results demonstrate that both L1 and L2 speakers of English are able to identify linguistic cues within both text types, but only L1 speakers are able to successfully distinguish between simplified and authentic texts. In addition, the performance of a computational tool was comparable to that of human performance. These findings have important implications for second lan- guage text processing and readability as well as implications for material de- velopment for second language instruction. Keywords: second language reading, text readability, materials development, text processing, psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, computa- tional linguistics 1. Introduction Recent research has demonstrated that text readability for second language (L2) learners is better measured using cognitively inspired indices based on theories of text comprehension as compared to readability formulas that de- pend on surface level linguistic features (Crossley, Greenfield & McNamara 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Context-Appropriate Crosslinguistic Pedagogy
    John Benjamins Publishing Company This is a contribution from Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 5:1 © 2017. John Benjamins Publishing Company This electronic file may not be altered in any way. The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only. Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible only to members (students and faculty) of the author’s/s’ institute. It is not permitted to post this PDF on the internet, or to share it on sites such as Mendeley, ResearchGate, Academia.edu. Please see our rights policy on https://benjamins.com/content/customers/rights For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com Context-appropriate crosslinguistic pedagogy Considering the role of language status in immersion education Susan Ballinger,1 Roy Lyster,1 Andrea Sterzuk2 and Fred Genesee1 1McGill University / 2University of Regina In the field of second language education, researchers increasingly call for cross- linguistic pedagogical practices meant to encourage bilingual learners to draw on all of their linguistic resources regardless of the focus of instruction or the status of the target language. These recommendations include a relaxation of the strict language separation common in many bilingual education programs. Specifically, some Canadian French immersion researchers suggest that it may be beneficial to allow immersion students to use English for peer interaction during instruc- tional time allotted to French.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Input Enhancement, Individual Output, and Collaborative Output on Foreign Language Learning: the Case of English Inversion Structures
    RESLA 26 (2013), 267-288 THE EFFECT OF INPUT ENHANCEMENT, INDIVIDUAL OUTPUT, AND COLLABORATIVE OUTPUT ON FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING: THE CASE OF ENGLISH INVERSION STRUCTURES SHADAB JABBARPOOR* Islamic Azad University, Garmrar Branch (Iran) ZIA TAJEDDIN Allameh Tabataba ‘i University (Iran) ABSTRACT. The present study compares the short term and long term effects of three focus-on-form tasks on the acquisition of English inversion structures by EFL learners. It also quantitatively investigates learners’ trend of development during the process of acquisition. Ninety freshmen from a B.A. program in TEFL were randomly divided into the three task groups. The tasks included textual enhancement in Group 1 and dictogloss in Group 2 and 3, where texts were reconstructed individually and collaboratively, respectively. Alongside a pretest and a posttest, production tests were administered to assess the trend of development in each group. Results revealed that the impacts of input and collaborative output tasks were greater than that of the individual output task. Moreover, the findings documented that the trend of development in the output group was not a linear additive process, but a rather U-shaped one with backsliding. This study supports previous studies that have combined enhancement with instructional assistance. KEY WORDS. Collaborative output, individual output, input enhancement, dictogloss, inversion structures. RESUMEN. Este estudio compara los efectos a corto y largo plazo de tres tareas de foco en la forma en la adquisición de estructuras de inversión por parte de apren- dices de inglés como lengua extranjera. Asimismo, se presenta una investigación cuan- titativa de las pautas de desarrollo durante el proceso de adquisición.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Teaching Practices and Language Use in Two-Way Dual Language
    1 Teaching Practices and Language Use in Two-Way Dual Language Immersion Programs in a Large Public School District Jennifer Li RAND Corporation Jennifer Steele American University Robert Slater American Councils for International Education Michael Bacon Portland Public Schools Trey Miller RAND Corporation Abstract Many educators and policymakers look to two-way dual language immersion as one of the most promising options to close achievement gaps for English learners. However, the programs’ effectiveness depends on the quality of their implementation. This article reports on a large-scale study of the implementation of dual language immersion across a large, urban school district. Using classroom observations, we examined teaching practices and language use by teachers and students in dual language immersion classrooms across an entire school district. We found strong implementation of teaching practices consistent with sheltered instruction, and strong adherence by teachers to partner language use as prescribed by the district’s guidelines. This article provides a descriptive view of what is happening in two-way dual language immersion classrooms in a large, urban U.S. school district. While other studies may examine classroom practices, few have done so on this scale. Citation of Published Version Li, J., Steele, J., Slater, R., Bacon, M., & Miller, T. (2016). Teaching practices and language use in two-way dual language immersion programs in a large public school district. International Multilingual Research Journal, 10(1), 31-43. Available at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19313152.2016.1118669 Key Words: dual language immersion; dual language implementation; fidelity of implementation, classroom practices in two-way immersion Acknowledgements: This study was supported by grant # R305E120003 from the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Language Processing and Language Learning
    To appear 2012 in Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, edited by Carol A. Chapelle. Wiley Blackwell Natural Language Processing and Language Learning Detmar Meurers Universität Tübingen [email protected] As a relatively young field of research and development started by work on cryptanalysis and machine translation around 50 years ago, Natural Language Processing (NLP) is concerned with the automated processing of human language. It addresses the analysis and generation of written and spoken language, though speech processing is often regarded as a separate subfield. NLP emphasizes processing and applications and as such can be seen as the applied side of Computational Linguistics, the interdisciplinary field of research concerned with for- mal analysis and modeling of language and its applications at the intersection of Linguistics, Computer Science, and Psychology. In terms of the language aspects dealt with in NLP, traditionally lexical, morphological and syntactic aspects of language were at the center of attention, but aspects of meaning, discourse, and the relation to the extra-linguistic context have become increasingly prominent in the last decade. A good introduction and overview of the field is provided in Jurafsky & Martin (2009). This article explores the relevance and uses of NLP in the context of language learning, focusing on written language. As a concise characterization of this emergent subfield, the discussion will focus on motivating the relevance, characterizing the techniques, and delin- eating the uses of NLP; more historical background and discussion can be found in Nerbonne (2003) and Heift & Schulze (2007). One can distinguish two broad uses of NLP in this context: On the one hand, NLP can be used to analyze learner language, i.e., words, sentences, or texts produced by language learners.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from Immersion
    EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE REPORT: 11 INTEGRATING LANGUAGE AND CONTENT: LESSONS FROM IMMERSION FRED GENESEE MCGILL UNIVERSITY NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON CULTURAL 1994 DIVERSITY AND SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING OVERVIEW Among the most interesting and effective innovations in second language education during the last three decades have been the immersion programs developed in Canada. The first immersion programs were developed to provide Canada's majority-group English-speaking students with opportunities to learn Canada's other official language. Since that time, immersion programs have been adopted in many different areas of North America, and alternative forms of immersion have been devised. This report presents a selective review of research findings from the extensive evaluations that have been undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of immersion programs in Canada and the United States. It focuses on selected aspects of second language learning and discusses implications of immersion research findings for the design and development of second language programs in other school settings for other kinds of learners: for example, for students learning through other forms of content-based instruction and limited-English-proficient students. The intent of this review is not to advocate immersion for all second language learners but to learn from the experiences and research findings in immersion for majority language learners. The lessons to be learned from immersion are related to the importance of (1) integrating language with content instruction, (2) classrooms that are discourse-rich, and (3) systematic planning of language along with content instruction. Integrating Language and Content: Lessons from Immersion INTRODUCTION Among the most interesting innovations in second language education during the last two decades have been the second language immersion programs developed in Canada (Genesee, 1987; Lambert & Tucker, 1972; Swain & Lapkin, 1982).
    [Show full text]