Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

(TESOL)

Group Work, Interlanguage Talk, and Second Language Acquisition Author(s): Michael H. Long and Patricia A. Porter Reviewed work(s): Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Jun., 1985), pp. 207-228 Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586827 . Accessed: 02/09/2012 10:22
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

TESOL QUARTERLY, Vol.19, No.2, June1985

GroupWork, InterlanguageTalk,and SecondLanguageAcquisition

MICHAEL H. LONG University Hawaiiat Manoa of PATRICIA A. PORTER San Francisco StateUniversity

The use ofgroupworkinclassroom secondlanguage has learning longbeen supported soundpedagogical by arguments. Recently, a work emerged has rationale group for however, psycholinguistic fromsecond languageacquisition on research conversation between non-native or talk. careful speakers, interlanguage Provided attention paidtothestructure tasks is of work together, on students the negotiation work possible in group activity makes it an attractive alternative the teacher-led, to mode and a "lockstep" viableclassroom substitute individual for with conversations native speakers. For some years now, methodologists have recommended smallwork (including in thesecond language classroom. group pair work) In doing so, theyhave used arguments which,forthemostpart,are While those arguments compellingenough,group are pedagogical. work has recentlytaken on increased psycholinguistic significance due to new research findingson two related topics: 1) the role of comprehensibleinputin second language acquisition(SLA) and 2) the negotiationwork possible in conversation between non-native talk.Thus,in additionto strong speakers,or interlanguage pedagogical arguments,there now exists a psycholinguistic rationale for groupwork in second language learning.
PEDAGOGICAL ARGUMENTS FOR GROUP WORK

There are at least fivepedagogical arguments theuse of group for work in second language (SL) learning.They concernthe potential of group work for increasingthe quantity of language practice for the opportunities, improving qualityof studenttalk,forindividfor ualizing instruction, creatinga positive affectiveclimate in the
207

We begin with a classroom,and forincreasingstudentmotivation. briefreview of those arguments. 1. Argument Group work increaseslanguage practiceopportunities. In all probability, one of themainreasonsforlow achievement by classroomSL learnersis simplythattheydo not have enough many timeto practice thenew language. This is especially seriousin large EFL classes in whichstudents but need to develop aural-oral skills, it is also relevantto the ESL context. From observational studies of classrooms (e.g., Hoetker and Ahlbrand1969 and Fanselow 1977), we know thatthe predominant is mode of instruction what mightbe termedthe lockstep,in which one person (theteacher)setsthesame instructional pace and content foreveryone, lecturing, a by point,leading drill explaining grammar work,or askingquestionsof thewhole class. The same studiesshow thatwhen lessons are organized in thismanner,a typicalteacherof any subject talks for at least half, and often for as much as two thirds,of any class period (Flanders 1970). In a 50-minutelesson, that would leave 25 minutes for the students.However, since 5 matters(getting minutesis usuallyspenton administrative pupils in and out of the room, calling the roll, collecting and distributing homeworkassignments, and so on) and (say) 5 minuteson reading is the and writing, totaltimeavailable to students actuallymore like 15 minutes.In an EFL class of 30 studentsin a public secondary school classroom, this averages out to 30 seconds per studentper lesson-or just one hourper studentper year.An adult ESL student takingan intensivecourse in the United States does not faremuch better. In a class of 15 studentsmeeting three hours a day, each student will have a total of only about one and a half hours of individual practice duringa six-weekprogram. Contraryto what would have us believe, some privatelanguage school advertisements thisis simplynot enough. Group work cannot solve this problem entirely,but it can with the public school setting, suppose help. To illustrate certainly talkis devoted thatjusthalfthetimeavailable forindividualstudent to work in groups of threeinsteadof to locksteppractice,in which one studenttalks while 29 listen(or not, as the case may be). This will change the total individual practice time available to each studentfromone hourto about fiveand a halfhours.While stilltoo thisis an increaseof over 500 percent. little, 2. Argument Group work improvesthe qualityof studenttalk. The lockstep limitsnot only the quantityof talk studentscan engage in, but also its quality. This is because teacher-fronted
208 TESOL QUARTERLY

lessons favora highly conventionalized one varietyof conversation, wedding ceremonies,and classrarelyfound outside courtrooms, rooms. In such settings,one speaker asks a series of known-

o'clock?-questions to which there is usually only one correct answer,alreadyknownto bothparties.The second speakerresponds has of (I do) and then,in theclassroom,typically thecorrectness the or does genuine responseconfirmed (Yes, Right, Good). Only rarely communication take place. (For further depressingdetails,see, for example, Hoetker and Ahlbrand1969, Long 1975, Fanselow 1977, Mehan 1979,and Long and Sato 1983.) An unfortunate but hardly surprising side effectof this sort of is tends to wander. pseudo-communication thatstudents'attention a Consequently,teachersmaintain briskpace to theirquestionsand tryto ensure prompt and brief answers in return.This is usually quite feasible,since whatthestudents requireslittle say thought (the same question oftenbeing asked several times) and littlelanguage (mostly single phrases or short "sentences"). Teachers quickly "correct" any errors,and studentsappreciate just as quickly that what theysay is less important thanhow theysay it. Such work may be useful for developing grammaticalaccuracy (although this has never been shown). It is unlikely,however, to skillsstudents need outside the promotethe kind of conversational but classroom,where accuracy is oftenimportant where communicative abilityis always at a premium. Group work can help a greatdeal here. First,unlikethelockstep, with its single, distantinitiator talk (the teacher) and its group of interlocutor face-to-facecommunication a small in (the students), is a naturalsettingfor conversation.Second, two or three group students working togetherfor five minutes at a stretchare not limitedto producinghurried, isolated "sentences."Rather,theycan in cohesive and coherentsequences of utterances, engage thereby developing discourse competence, not just (at best) a sentence Third,as shownby Long, Adams, McLean, and Castahos grammar. students can take on rolesand adopt positionswhichin lock(1976), work are usuallythe teacher'sexclusive preserveand can thus step associated with those roles practice a range of language functions and positions.While solving a problem concerningthe sitingof a new school in an imaginarytown, for example, they can suggest, infer,qualify, hypothesize,generalize, or disagree. In terms of another dimension of conversationalmanagement,they can develop such skills-also normallypracticed only by the teacher-as
GROUP WORK, INTERLANGUAGE TALK, AND SLA 209

or such as Do you workin the information, display,questions, Do at womanto be accused'soffice 27 Sloan Street?, youtakethis yourlawfulwedded wife?,and Do you come to class at nine

and clariturn-allocation, summarizing, focusing, topic-nomination, fying.(Some of these last skillsalso turnout to have considerable importance.)Finally, given appropriatematerials psycholinguistic can engage in thekind to workwithand problemsto solve, students of of information exchange characteristic communicationoutside this classrooms-with all the creativelanguage use and spontaneity entails-where the focus is on meaning as well as form.In other words,theycan in all theseways develop at leastsome of thevariety of skills which make up communicativecompetence in a second language. 3. Argument Group work helps individualizeinstruction. it However efficient may be forsome purposes-for example,the in needed by all students a classof presentation new information differences the lockstep rides roughshod over many individual inevitablypresentin a group of students.This is especially trueof the vast majorityof school children,who are typicallyplaced in classes solely on the basis of chronologicaland mentalage. It can also occur in quite small classes of adults,however. Volunteeradult learnersare usuallygrouped on thebasis of theiraggregatescoreson a proficiency test. Yet, as any experienced teacher will attest, in among students specifaggregatescores oftenconceal differences ic linguisticabilities. Some students,for example, will have much bettercomprehensionthanproductionskills,and vice versa. Some may speak haltinglybut accurately,while others,though fluent, make lots of errors. in In additionto thiskind of variability specificSL abilities,other kindsof individualdifferences ignoredby lockstepteachinginclude motivastudents'age, cognitive/developmental stage,sex, attitude, interests, cognitivestyle,culturalbacktion,aptitude,personality, ground,native language, prior language learningexperience,and would all targetlanguage needs. In an ideal world,thesedifferences in be reflected,among otherways, in the pacing of instruction, its in and culturalcontent, thelevel of intellectual challengeit linguistic (e.g., inductiveor deducposes, in the mannerof its presentation are and in the kindsof classroomroles students assigned. tive), for work obviously cannot handle all these differences, Group reliable measures. some of which we stilllack easily administered, can Once again,however,itcan help. Small groupsof students work sets of materialssuited to theirneeds. Moreover,they on different can do so simultaneously, therebyavoiding the riskof boringother studentswho do not have the same problem,perhaps because they first language, or who do have the same problem speak a different
210 TESOL QUARTERLY

but need less timeto solve it.Group work,then,is a first steptoward which everyone agrees is a good individualizationof instruction, idea but which few teachersor textbooksseem to do much about. 4. climate. Argument Group work promotesa positiveaffective insecure, experiMany students, especiallytheshyor linguistically ence considerablestresswhen called upon in thepublic arena of the lockstep classroom. This stressis increased by the knowledge that theymustrespond accuratelyand above all quickly.Research (see, forexample,Rowe 1974and Whiteand Lightbown1983) has shown thatifstudents pause longerthanabout one second beforebeginning to respond or while making a response, or (worse) appear not to know the answer,or make an error, teacherswill tend to interrupt, or rephrase the question, ask a different one, "correct," repeat, Not all teachersdo thesethings, student. of and/orswitchto another course, but most teachers do so more than they realize or would want to admit. In contrastto the public atmosphereof lockstep instruction, a small group of peers provides a relativelyintimatesettingand, in usually,a more supportiveenvironment which to tryout embryonic SL skills. After extensive research in Britishprimary and secondary school classrooms,Barnes (1973:19) wrote of the smallgroup setting: Anintimate to allowsus tobe relatively and group inexplicit incoherent, in and to changedirection themiddleof a sentence, be uncertain selfbut What to contradictory. we saymaynotamount much, ourconfidence inourfriends allowsus totakethefirst out towards steps sorting groping ourthoughts feelings putting I sort and into call them words. shall this by oftalk"exploratory." In his studiesof children's talkin small groups,Barnes founda high incidence of pauses, hesitations, stumblingover new words, false of direction,and expressions of doubt (I think, starts,changes probably, and so on). This was the speech of children"talkingto learn" (Barnes 1973:20)-talking, in otherwords,in a way and fora fromthose which commonlycharacterize purpose quite different interaction a full-class in session.There, the"audience effect" the of the perceptionof the listening teacheras judge, and the large class, need to produce a short,polished product all serve to inhibitthis kind of language. Barnes (1973:19) draws attention anotherfactor: to It is notonly andlackofintimacy discourage size that talk: exploratory if

GROUP WORK, INTERLANGUAGETALK, AND SLA

211

until have too, ritual, this, they relationships been formalized approach can will make it hard for anyoneto think aloud. Some classrooms becomelikethis, whentheteacher controls verythoroughly especially that everything is said. In otherwords, freedom fromthe requirementforaccuracy at all costs and entryinto the richer and more accommodating set of interaction promotea positive relationships providedby small-group affectiveclimate. This in turnallows for the development of the kind of personalized,creativetalk forwhich most aural-oralclasses are trying prepare learners. to learners. 5. Argument Group work motivates Several advantages have already been claimed forgroupwork.It of and richer allows fora greaterquantity variety language practice, practicethatis betteradapted to individualneeds and conducted in involved climate.Studentsare individually a morepositiveaffective in lessons more often and at a more personal level. For all these introduces reasonsand because of thevariety groupworkinevitably into a lesson, it seems reasonable to believe that group work motivatesthe classroomlearner. Empirical evidence supportingthisbelief has been provided by several studies reported recentlyin Littlejohn(1983). It has been found,forexample,thatsmall-group, independentstudycan lead to increased motivationto study Spanish among beginningstudents (Littlejohn1982); learnersrespondingto a questionnairereported to thattheyfeltless inhibitedand freer speak and make mistakesin in thesmall group thanin theteacher-ledclass. Similarly, a studyof children's attitudes to the study of French in an urban British comprehensiveschool (Fitz-Gibbon and Reay 1982), threequarters of the pupils ranked their liking for French as a school subject higheraftercompletinga programin which 14-yearsignificantly old non-native speakers tutored 11-year-old non-nativesin the language. GROUP WORK: A PSYCHOLINGUISTICRATIONALE for In additionto pedagogical arguments theuse of groupworkas there now exists least a complement to lockstep instruction, at evidence forgroup work in SL teachindependentpsycholinguistic ing. This evidence has emerged fromrecent work on the role of comprehensibleinputin SLA and on the natureof non-native/nonIt nativeconversation. is to thiswork thatwe now turn.

212

TESOL QUARTERLY

Acquisition Comprehensible inSecondLanguage Input on A good deal of research now been conducted thespecial has of to features speechaddressed SL learners native (NSs) speakers by who are more of thelanguageor by non-native speakers(NNSs)

it thanthe learnersare. Briefly, seems thatthislinguistic proficient

to address young to caretakers like input thelearner, thespeechthat is modified a variety in children their mother of tongue, learning This to (among otherreasons) make it comprehensible. ways form modified or talk, speech, foreigner is a reducedor"simplified" ofthefull, characterized shorter, and adultNS variety is typically by
less vocabulary syntactically complex utterances, higher-frequency It and theavoidance of idiomaticexpressions. also tendsto be items, delivered at a slower rate than normal adult speech and to be

on talk,see Hatch 1983,Chapter9; fora reviewof findings foreigner similarfindings teacher talk in SL classrooms,see Gaies 1983a on and Chaudron in press.) It has further been shown that NSs, especially those (like ESL are with considerableexperiencein talkingto foreigners, teachers) at modifying justthelanguage itself, also theshape of but not adept the conversations withNNSs in whichthe modifiedspeech occurs. both to particitheirnon-native conversational They help partners and comprehend in a variety of ways. For example, they pate of manage to make topics salientby moving them to the front an like San Diego, did you like it?,rather utterance, sayingsomething than Did you like San Diego? They use more questions than they would with other NSs and employ a number of devices for both what theyare sayingand what the NNS is saying. clarifying The devices include clarificationrequests, confirmation checks, of own and checks,and repetitions rephrasings their comprehension and theNNSs' utterances. (For a reviewof theresearchon conversationaladjustments NNSs, see Long 1983a.) to It is importantto note that when making these linguisticand conversational on adjustments, speakersare concentrating communicatingwiththe NNS; thatis, theirfocus is on what theyare saying, not on how they are saying it. As with parentsand elder siblings talking to young children,the adjustmentscome naturallyfrom tryingto communicate. While their use seems to grow more withpractice,theyrequireno special training. sophisticated A recent study by Hawkins (in press) has shown that it is dangerous to assume thatthe adjustments always lead to comprehensionby NNSs, even when theyappear to have understood,as of judged by theappropriateness their responses.On theotherhand,
GROUP WORK, INTERLANGUAGE TALK, AND SLA 213

articulated somewhat moreclearly. (For a reviewof theresearch

at least two studies (Chaudron 1983 and Long in press) have demonstrated in clear improvements comprehension among groups of NNSs as a result of specific and global speech modifications, Otherresearchhas demonstrated thatthemodifications respectively. themselves morelikelyto occur when thenativespeakerand the are non-nativespeaker each startout a conversationwith information the other needs in order for the pair to complete some task successfully.Tasks of this kind, called two-way tasks (as distinct to fromone-way tasks,in which only one speaker has information modificamore conversational communicate),resultin significantly tionsby the NS (Long 1980, 1981, 1983b). This is probably because the need forthe NS to obtain unknowninformation fromthe NNS makes it importantfor the NS to monitor the NNS's level of is comprehensionand thusto adjust untilthe NNS's understanding for sufficient performance his or herpartof the task. of withthe There is also a substantial amountof evidence consistent or hear and understand the idea thatthemore language thatlearners more comprehensibleinputtheyreceive, the fasterand betterthey learn. (For a review of this evidence, see Krashen 1980, 1982 and Long 1981, 1983b.) Krashenhas proposed an explanationfor this, which he calls the Input Hypothesis, claimingthatlearnersimprove in a SL by understandinglanguage which contains some target language forms(phonological,lexical, morphological,or syntactic) which are a littleahead of theircurrent knowledge and which they could not understandin isolation. Ignorance of the new formsis and embedded compensated forby hearingthemused in a situation in otherlanguage thattheydo understand: to A necessary condition move from stagei to stagei + 1 is thatthe means i that understand "understand" input contains+ 1,where acquirer of and not the form the thatthe acquireris focusedon the meaning utterance 1980:170). (Krashen the Whetheror not simplyhearingand understanding new items for are both necessaryand sufficient a learnerto use themsuccessfullylater is stillunclear. Krashenclaims thatspeaking is unnecessary,thatit is useful only as a means of obtainingcomprehensible input.However, at least one researcher(Swain in press) has argued to thatlearnersmustalso be given an opportunity produce the new forms-a position Swain calls the "comprehensibleoutput [italics added] hypothesis."What many researchersdo agree upon is that learnersmustbe put in a positionof being able to negotiatethenew input, therebyensuringthat the language in which it is heard is modifiedto exactlythelevel of comprehensibility can manage. they is As noted earlier,theresearchshows thatthiskindof negotiation perfectlypossible, given two-way tasks, in NS/NNS dyads. The
214 TESOL QUARTERLY

problem forclassroomteachers,of course,is thatitis impossiblefor themto provide enoughof such individualizedNS/NNS opportunities for all theirstudents.It therefore becomes essential to know whether two (or more) non-native during together speakersworking for the group work can perform same kind of negotiation meaning. This question has been one of the main motivationsfor several recent studies of NNS/NNS conversation, to oftenreferred in the literature interlanguage as talk. The focus in these studiesof NNSs workingtogetherin small groups is no longer just the quantityof language practice studentsare able to engage in, but the qualityof the talktheyproduce in termsof the negotiation process. StudiesofInterlanguage Talk

An early study of interlanguage talk was carried out by Long, adult Adams, McLean, and Castahios(1976) in intermediate-level, ESL classes in Mexico. The researcherscompared speech samples fromtwo teacher-ledclass discussionsto speech fromtwo smallgroup discussions(two learnersper group) doing the same task.To examine the quantityand quality of speech in both contexts,the researchers first coded moves accordingto a special category system designed forthestudy.Qualityofspeech was definedby thevariety of moves, and quantityof speech was defined by the numberof moves. The amount and varietyof studenttalk were found to be significantly greater in the small groups than in the teacher-led discussions.In otherwords, students onlytalked more,but also not used a wider range of speech acts in the small-group context. In a largerstudy,Porter(1983) examined the language produced discussions done in pairs. The by adult learnersin task-centered learnerswere all NSs of Spanish. The 18 subjects (12 NNSs and 6 levels: intermediate, NSs) representedthreeproficiency advanced, and nativespeaker.Each subjectparticipated separatediscussions in witha subject fromeach of the threelevels. Porterwas thusable to talk withtalk in NS/NNS conversations, as compare interlanguage well as to look for differences across learner proficiencylevels. Among many other findings,the following are relevant to the presentdiscussion: 1. With regard to quantity of speech, Porter's resultssupported those of Long, Adams, McLean, and Castahnos (1976): Learners thanwithNS partners. produced more talkwithotherlearners In addition,learnersproduced more talk with advanced-levelthan with intermediate-level in partners, part because the conversationswithadvanced learners lasted longer. 2. To examine quality of speech, Portermeasured the numberof
GROUP WORK, INTERLANGUAGE TALK, AND SLA 215

grammaticaland lexical errorsand false startsand found that across contexts. learnerspeech showed no significant differences are This finding contradicts popular notionthatlearners more the carefuland accuratewhen speakingwithNSs thanwhenspeaking withotherlearners. 3. Other analyses focused on the interactionalfeatures of the were foundintheamountof no differences discussions; significant repair by NSs and learners.Repair was a composite variable, of checks,clarification requests,compreconsisting confirmation hensionchecks,and threecommunication strategies (verification of meaning,definition request, and indicationof lexical uncerof Porter suggesttainty). emphasizedtheimportance thisfinding, thatitshows thatlearners capable ofnegotiating are repairina ing mannersimilarto NSs and thatlearnersat.the two proficiency to levelsinherstudywere equally competent do suchrepairwork. was thatlearnersmade more A relatedand notsurprising finding thanwithadvanced learners. repairsofthiskindwithintermediate 4. Closer examination of communicationstrategies,a subset of repair features,revealed very low frequenciesof "appeals for assistance" (Tarone 1981), redefined for the Porter study to of include verification meaning,definition request, and indicaIn tionof lexical uncertainty. addition,learnersmade theappeals to in similarnumberswhether talking NSs or to otherlearners(28 occurrences in four and a quarter hours with NSs versus 21 occurrencesin fourand a halfhourswithotherlearners.)Porter the suggestedthather data contradict notionthatotherNNSs are not good conversationalpartnersbecause they cannot provide accurate input when it is solicited. In fact, however, learners may be. It rarelyask forhelp, no matterwho theirinterlocutors that operate to keep would appear that the social constraints repair to a minimum (McCurdy 1980) operate foreigner-talk in similarly NNS/NNS discussions. is 5. Furtherevidence of these social constraints the low frequency learnersand NSs. Learnerscorrected of other-correction both by 1.5 percent and NSs corrected8 percent of theirinterlocutors' that is Also of interest thefinding grammaticaland lexical errors. .3 percentof the errorstheirpartners learnersmiscorrected only are made, suggestingthatmiscorrections not a serious threatin unmonitored group work. 6. The findingson repair were paralleled by those on another interactivefeature,labeled prompts,thatis, words, phrases,or to sentencesadded in themiddle of the otherspeaker's utterance Learnersand NSs provided continueor complete thatutterance. however, difference, One significant numbersof prompts. similar
216 TESOL QUARTERLY

was thatlearnersprompted otherlearnersfive timesmore than they prompted NSs; thus,learnersgot more practice using this conversationalresource with otherlearnersthan they did with NSs. Overall, Porterconcluded thatalthoughlearnerscannot provide and sociolinguistic each otherwith the accurate grammatical input thatNSs can, learnerscan offereach othergenuinecommunicative practice, includingthe negotiationformeaningthatis believed to of aid SLA. Confirmation Porter'sfindings since been provided has in a small-scalereplication studyby Wagner (1983). Two additional studies of interlanguage talk (Varonis and Gass and Varonis in press) should be mentioned.In the first 1983, Gass talkin 11 non-native study,the researchers compared interlanguage in conversationaldyads with conversation 4 NS/NNS dyads and 4 NS/NS dyads. Like the learnersin Porter's(1983) study,the NNSs were studentsfrom two levels of an intensiveEnglish program; unlike Porter'ssubjects, these learnerswere fromtwo native language backgrounds (Japanese and Spanish). Varonis and Gass routabulated the frequencyof what theytermnonunderstanding which indicate a lack of comprehension and lead to negotiatines, tionformeaningthrough repairsequences. The main findingin the Varonis and Gass study was a greater frequency of negotiationsequences in non-nativedyads than in dyads involving NSs. The most negotiationoccurred when the NNSs were of different profilanguage backgroundsand different the next highest frequencywas in pairs sharinga ciency levels; was in pairs level; and thelowest frequency language or proficiency with the same language backgroundand proficiency level. On the basis of these findings, Varonis and Gass argue for the value of non-native conversations as a nonthreatening context in which learnerscan practicelanguage skillsand make inputcomprehensible through negotiation. Buildingon thisstudy,Gass and Varonis (in press) nextexamined negotiationby NNSs in two additional communicationcontexts: what Long (1981) calls one-wayand two-waytasks.In theone-way task,one member of a dyad or triaddescribed a picturewhich the other member(s) drew. In the two-way task, each member heard different information about a robbery,and the dyad/triadwas to determinethe identity the robber. The participants, of who were grouped into three dyads and one triad, were nine intermediate studentsfromfourdifferent language backgroundsin an intensive ESL program. in of Gass and Varonislooked fordifferences thefrequency negotiationsequences across the two task types; they found thatthere
GROUP WORK, INTERLANGUAGE TALK, AND SLA 217

were more indicatorsof nonunderstanding the one-waytask,but in the differencewas not statistically significant. They suggest that theremay have been moreneed fornegotiation theone-waytask on A because of the lack of shared background information. second concern in the study was the role of the participantinitiating the The studentdrawing negotiation.The findingwas not surprising: thepicturein theone-waytaskused farmoreindicators nonunderof related to the onestandingthan the describerdid. A thirdfinding way task was a decrease in the number of nonunderstanding indicatorson the second trial:Familiarity with the task seemed to decrease the need for negotiation,even though the roles were and thosedoingthe switched,withthestudents doingthedescribing drawingchangingplaces. As in theirearlierstudy,Gass and Varonis argue thatnegotiation in non-nativeexchanges is a useful activityin that it allows the learnersto manipulateinput.When inputis negotiated,theymaintain,conversationcan thenproceed witha minimumof confusion; additionally, the input will be more meaningfulto the learners in because of theirinvolvement the negotiation process. The importanceof learners'being able to adjust inputby providwas also stressedby Gaies ing feedback on its comprehensibility Gaies examinedlearnerfeedback to teacherson referential (1983b). of were ESL students various tasks.The participants communication and proficiencylevels and their teachers, grouped into 12 ages were encouragedto ask for different dyads and triads.The students wherevernecessaryto complete the or clarification re-explanation and sequencing six different task of identifying designs described theteacher.On thebasis oftheaudiotaped data, Gaies developed by an inventoryof learner verbal feedback consisting of 4 basic and reacting,and structuring) 19 categories (responding,soliciting, Of interest here are Gaies' findingsthat 1) learners subcategories. used a varietyof kinds of feedback,withreactingmoves being the moves the least frequent,and 2) most frequent and structuring learnersvaried considerablyin the amount of feedback theyprovided. talkin small-group In anotherstudyof non-native work,thistime in a classroom setting,Pica and Doughty (in press) compared discussions and small-groupdiscussions on (oneteacher-fronted way) decision-makingtasks. Their data were taken from three classroom discussionsand threesmall-groupdiscussions(four stuESL students. dents per group) involvinglow-intermediate-level and on grammaticality amountof speech are similar Their findings to those of Porter (1983). Pica and Doughty found that student T-units production,as measured by the percentageof grammatical
218 TESOL QUARTERLY

was equally grammatical in (Hunt 1970) per totalnumberof T-units, the two contexts. In other words, students did not pay closer attention theirspeech in the teacher'spresence. In termsof the to amount of speech, Pica and Doughty found that the individual studentstalked more in theirgroups than in theirteacher-fronted of discussions,confirming previous findings a clear advantage for groupwork in thisarea. Pica and Doughty also examinedvarious interactional features in the discussions. of They founda verylow frequency comprehension and confirmation checks and clarification requestsin both contexts and pointed out thatsuch interactional is negotiation notnecessarily useful input forthe entireclass, as it is usually directed by and at individual students.In the teacher-ledcontext,it serves only as a formof exposure forotherclass members,who may or may not be whereas such negotiatedinput directed at a learnerin a listening, small groupis farmorelikelyto be usefulforthatlearner.Finally,an examination of other-corrections and completions showed those featuresto be more typical of group work than of teacher-led discussions,thus supportingthe argumentsfor learners'conversationalcompetence made by Porterand by Varonisand Gass. In a follow-up study, Doughtyand Pica (1984) comparedlanguage use in teacher-fronted lessons, group work (four students per and pair workon a two-waytask.The participants, who had group), the same level of proficiencyas those in Pica and Doughty (in about how flowerswere press), had to give and obtain information to be planted in a garden.Each startedwithan individualfeltboard displayinga different portionof a masterplot. At the end of the all participantswere supposed to have constructedthe activity, same picture,which theycompared againstthe masterversionthen shown to them for the first time. The researcherscompared their withthosefromtheirearlierstudy,in whicha one-waytask findings had been used. Doughty and Pica foundthatthe two-waytask generatedsignificantlymore negotiationwork than the one-way task in the smallgroup settingbut found no effectfor task type in the teacher-led lessons. Negotiation was defined as the percentage of "conversational adjustments";these adjustmentsincluded clarificationrequests,confirmation checks,comprehension checks,self-and otherrepetitions(both exact and semantic), over the total number of T-unitsand fragments. Clarification requests,confirmation checks, and comprehensionchecks, in particular,increased in frequency (froma totalof 6 percentto 24 percentof all T-unitsand fragments in thesmall groups) withtheswitchto a two-waytaskin thesecond study.
GROUP WORK, INTERLANGUAGE TALK, AND SLA 219

When task type was held constant, Doughty and Pica found that more negotiation work (again measuredby theratioof significantly conversational to occurred adjustments totalT-unitsand fragments) in thesmall group (66 percent)and in pair work (68 percent)thanin thelockstep format(45 percent),but thatthe difference amounts in between the small group and pair work was not statistically significant. More total talk was generatedin teacher-fronted lessons than in small groups on both types of task,and more total talk on twoand way thanon one-waytasksin bothteacher-fronted small-group discussions.However, the33 percentincreasein the amountof talk in the small groups forthe two-waytask was six timesgreaterthan the 5 percentincrease provided by the two-waytask in teacher-led lessons. Teacher-fronted lessons on a two-way task generatedthe most language use, and small-groupdiscussionon a one-way task produced the least. As Doughty and Pica noted, however,the high totaloutputin the teacher-fronted, one-way discussionswas largely achieved by close to 50 percentof the talk being produced by the teachers,whereas teachers could not and did not dominate in this way on the garden-planting (two-way) task. Thus, studentstalked more on thetwo-waytask,whether withtheir teachersor in working the four-person groups. Doughty and Pica also noted thatnegotiationwork as a percentlessons on both oneage of total talk was lower in teacher-fronted and two-waytasks.This finding, way theysuggested,may indicate that studentsare reluctantto indicate a lack of understanding in frontof theirteacher and an entireclass of studentsand for that reason do not negotiate as much comprehensibleinput in wholeclass settings.This suggestionwas supported by the researchers' informalassessmentof students'actual comprehension, judged as their lower success rate on the garden-plantingtask in the by teacher-ledthan in the small-groupdiscussions.Doughty and Pica concluded by emphasizingthe importancenot of group work per se, but of the nature of the task which the teacher provides for work done in small groups. into studieshave contributed insights Finally,two nonquantitative interlanguagetalk. Bruton and Samuda (1980) studied errorsand in error treatment small-group discussions based on variousproblemsolvingtasks.Their learnerswere adults froma varietyof language backgrounds,studyingin an intensivecourse. The main findings each othersuccesswere that1) learnerswere capable of correcting themto do so, fully,even thoughtheirteachershad not instructed errorand 2) learnerswere able to employ a varietyof different of treatmentstrategies,among which were the offering straight alternatives and theuse of repairquestions. (i.e., explicitcorrections)
220 TESOL QUARTERLY

In general,the learners'treatments were much like those of their errors treatedby thelearners teachers,exceptthatthemostfrequent were lexical items,notsyntax pronunciation. or Brutonand Samuda also noted thatin ten hoursof observation, only once was a correct item changed to an incorrect one by a peer; furthermore, students did notpick up manyerrors fromeach other, finding a also reported by Porter (1983). Bruton and Samuda make the point.that while learnersseemed able to deal withapparent,immediatebreakdowns in communication, several other,more subtle types of breakdown occurredwhich thestudents not (and probably could not) treat. did They suggestthat learnersbe given an explanationof the various kinds of communicationbreakdowns that can occur, thattheybe taught strategiesfor coping with them, and that they be given tasks expliciterror-monitoring duringgroupwork. Somewhat related to thiswork on errortreatment the analysis is and Low (1983) of monitoring non-native in discussions. by Morrison Morrison and Low point out that their subjects, in addition to theirown speech, self-correcting lexis, syntax,disfor monitoring value without feedbackfromothers and in a highly course,and truth communicative also monitored outputoftheir the interlocucontext, tors.This interactive view of monitoring, makingthe struggle of to communicate "a kind of team effort"(243), includes the kind of negotiationthat Varonis and Gass are describing.The transcripts presentedby Morrisonand Low, however,show a wide divergence in the extent whichgroupspay attention and provide feedback to to on their members' speech. While some groups seemed to be involvedin thetopic and helped each otherout at everylapse, other absorbed in their own thoughts inattenand groupsappeared totally tiveto the speaker'sstruggles communicate. to of Summary ResearchFindings The research findingsreviewed above appear to support the followingclaims: of more individual Quantity practice.Studentsreceive significantly language practice opportunitiesin group work than in lockstep lessons (Long, Adams, McLean, and Castafios 1976, Doughty and Pica 1984,Pica and Doughtyin press).They also receivesignificantly more practice opportunities NNS/NNS than in NS/NNS dyads in (Porter 1983), more when the other NNS has greaterratherthan in equal proficiency theSL (Porter1983), and morein two-waythan in one-waytasks(Doughtyand Pica 1984). Varietyof practice. The range of language functions(rhetorical, pedagogic, and interpersonal) practiced by individual studentsis
GROUP WORK, INTERLANGUAGETALK, AND SLA 221

wider in group work than in lockstep teaching (Long, Adams, McLean, and Castahios1976). Accuracyofstudent production.Studentsperformat the same level of grammaticalaccuracy in theirSL outputin unsupervisedgroup work as in "public" lockstep work conducted by the teacher (Pica and Doughty in press). Similarly, level of accuracy is the same the whether interlocutor a dyad is a nativeor a non-native the in speaker (Porter1983). Correction. The frequencyof other-correction completionsby and is students higherin group workthanin lockstepteaching(Pica and with NS and different Doughty in press) and is not significantly NNS interlocutors small-groupwork, being very low in both in contexts(Porter 1983). There seems to be considerable individual in students variability the amountof attention pay to theirown and others'speech (Gaies 1983b,Morrison and Low 1983),however,and some indicationthattraining to students correcteach othercan help this(Brutonand Samuda 1980). During group work,learnremedy ers seem more apt to repairlexical errors, whereas teacherspay an amount of attentionto errorsof syntaxand pronunciation equal (Brutonand Samuda 1980). Learnersalmostnevermiscorrect during unsupervisedgroup work (Brutonand Samuda 1980,Porter1983). for Studentsengage in morenegotiation meaningin the Negotiation. in teacher-fronted, small group than whole-classsettings (Doughty and Pica 1984). NNS/NNS dyads engage in as much or more negotiationwork than NS/NNS dyads (Porter 1983, Varonis and Gass 1983). In small groups, learners negotiate more with other learnerswho are at a different level of SL proficiency (Porter1983, first Varonis and Gass 1983) and more withlearnersfromdifferent language backgrounds(Varonis and Gass 1983). Task. Previous work on NS/NNS conversationhas found two-way work thanone-way more negotiation tasksto produce significantly tasks (Long 1980, 1981). The findingsfor interlanguagetalk have been less clear, with one study (Gass and Varonis in press) not finding this pattern and another (Pica and Doughty in press) appearing not to do so, but actuallynot employinga genuinetwoway task. The latest study of this issue (Doughty and Pica 1984), which did use a two-way task, that is, one requiringinformation exchange by both or all parties,supportsthe originalclaim forthe increasimportanceof tasktype,withthetwo-waytasksignificantly ing the amount of talk, the amount of negotiationwork, and-to judge impressionistically-thelevel of input comprehended by students,as measured by theirtask achievement.Finally,it seems with a task decreases the amount of negotiation that familiarity work it produces (Gass and Varonisin press).
222 TESOL QUARTERLY

IMPLICATIONSFOR THE CLASSROOM The researchfindings interlanguage talk generally on supportthe claims commonlymade for group work. Increases in the amount and varietyof language practice available through group work are and these have obvious clearlytwo of its most attractivefeatures, appeal to teachersof almostany methodologicalpersuasion. The fact that the level of accuracy maintainedin unsupervised groups has been found to be as high as thatin teacher-monitored, lockstep work should help to allay fears that lower quality is the of price to be paid forhigherquantity practice.The same is trueof the findingsthat monitoring and correctionoccur spontaneously (although variably) in group work and that it seems possible to in improve both throughstudenttraining correction techniques,if thatis thought desirable.The apparently spontaneousoccurrenceof other-correction probably diminishesthe importance sometimes attachedto designationof one studentin each groupas leader, with for monitoringaccuracy. However, group special responsibility leaders may stillbe needed forotherreasons,such as ensuring thata task is carried out in the manner the teacher or materialswriter intended.(See Long 1977 forfurther the detailsconcerning logistics of organizinggroup workin the classroom.) For many teachers, of course, concern about errorsoccurring and/or going uncorrectedhas diminished in recent years, since second language acquisition research has shown errorsto be an inevitable,even "healthy,"part of language development.In fact, some teachershave been persuaded by theories second language of such as Krashen's (1982) Monitor Theory, and/or by acquisition, new teachingmethods,such as the NaturalApproach (Krashenand Terrell 1983), to focus exclusivelyon communicative language use fromthe very earlieststages of instruction. while not Many others, attention formaltogether, to are eager to ensurethat abandoning theirlessons containsizable portionsof communication work,even thiswill inevitably involveerrors. though For such teachers,themostinteresting of findings theresearchon talk do not concernquantityand varietyof language interlanguage practice or accuracy and correction,but rather,the negotiation work in NNS/NNS conversation.The findingsof each of five studies which have looked at the issue of whetherlearners can accomplish as much or more of this kind of practice working as together witha NS are veryencouraging. The relatedfinding thatstudents mixedSL proficiencies of tendto obtain more practice in negotiationthan same-proficiency dyads withthesame needs are working small in suggeststhatwhenstudents groups on the same materialsor tasks, teachers of mixed-ability
GROUP WORK, INTERLANGUAGETALK, AND SLA 223

classes would do well to opt forheterogeneous(over homogeneous) unlessadditionalconsiderations dictateotherwise. abilitygrouping, The factthatgroupsof mixed nativelanguage backgroundstend to achieve greateramounts of negotiationalso suggests groupingof studentsof mixed language backgroundstogetherwhere possible. For manyteachersof multilingual classes, thiswould in any case be preferable,since it is one means of avoiding the development of "classroom dialects" intelligible only to speakers of a common first language-a phenomenon also avoidable throughstudentshaving access to speakers of other target language varieties in lockstep work or outsidethe classroom. The findingconcerningmixed firstlanguage groups does not in mean, of course, thatgroup work will be unsuccessful monolingual classrooms, which is the norm in many EFL situations.To reiterate,the research shows clearly that the kind of negotiation obtained in groupsof work of interest here is also verysuccessfully of students thesame first language background.Thingssimplyseem betterwithmixed language groups. slightly talk of Finally,thefindings researchto date on interlanguage offer mixed evidence for the claimed advantages of two-way over oneHowever, recentwork on this way tasks in NS-NNS conversation. issue seems to indicate thatthe claims are probably justifiedin the of it NNS-NNS context, too. Further, appears to be thecombination work (includingpair work) withtwo-waytasksthatis small-group especially beneficial to learners in terms of the amount of talk produced, the amount of negotiation work produced, and the amountof comprehensible inputobtained. In thislight,teachersmightthinkit desirable to include as many studentscarryout in two-waytasksas possible among the activities It is obviously useful to have studentswork on onesmall groups. does notknow or whichthelistener way tasks,such as tellinga story to draw on thebasis thelistener attempts describinga picturewhich of the descriptionalone. However, because one participantstarts in withall theinformation such tasks,theothergroupmembershave nothingto "bargain" with; this limits the ability of the latter to negotiatethe way the conversationdevelops. (Some one-way tasks thanconversations.) in factbecome monologuesrather In conclusion,it should be rememberedthatgroup work is not a workis obviouslyusefulforcertainkinds panacea. Teacher-fronted of classroom activities,and poorly conceived or organized group as work can be as ineffective badly run lockstep lessons. Furtheris more, additional information still needed on such issues as the optimum size, composition, and internalorganizationof groups; of and about thestructuring management tasksto be done in groups;
224 TESOL QUARTERLY

and about the relationshipbetween group work and teacher-led instruction. Despite these caveats, the authorsare encouraged by the initial of findings what we hope will develop into a coherentand cumulative line of classroom-oriented research: studies of interlanguage talk. Together with theoreticaladvances concerningthe role of inputin second language acquisition,the studieswe have reviewed have already contributed psycholinguistic a rationaleto the existing for pedagogical arguments groupwork in theSL classroom.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This is a revised versionof a paper presentedat the 18thAnnualTESOL Conventionin Houston,March 1984. THE AUTHORS Michael H. Long is Assistant in Professor the ESL Departmentat the University of Hawaii and Directorof theCenterforSecond Language Classroom Researchinthe Social Science Research Institute.He is a member of the Editorial University's

Boards of the TESOL Quarterly and Studiesin Second Language Advisory He of Research Acquisition. is also co-editor IssuesinSecondLanguage (Newbury
House Publishers,Inc.) and of the new Cambridge Applied LinguisticsSeries (Cambridge University Press). Patricia A. Porter, AssistantProfessor of English, coordinates the MA/TEFL Program and the ESL Programat San Francisco State University and teaches in both programs. Her research interests include interlanguagetalk, and her most recentpublicationis an ESL oral communication text.

REFERENCES and Samuda.1980.Learner teacher Bruton, and rolesin Anthony, Virginia thetreatment oralerror group of in work. RELC Journal 11(2):49-63. of Chaudron, and Craig.1983.Simplification input: topicreinstatements their effects L2 learners' on and recognition recall.TESOL Quarterly 17(3):437-458.
Chaudron, Craig. In press. Second language classroom research. CamBarnes, Douglas. 1973. Language in the classroom. Bletchley,England: Press. Open University

Press. bridge: Cambridge University

GROUP WORK, INTERLANGUAGETALK, AND SLA

225

gap Doughty,Catherine,and Teresa Pica. 1984.Information tasks:do they facilitate second language acquisition? Paper presented at the 18th AnnualTESOL Conference,Houston,March 1984. Fanselow, JohnF. 1977. Beyond Rashomon-conceptualizing and describ11(1):17-39. ing the teachingact. TESOL Quarterly Fitz-Gibbon,C.I., and D.G. Reay. 1982. Peer-tutoring: up brightening FL school. British Journalof Language teachingin an urban comprehensive Teaching 20(1):39-44. Flanders,Ned. 1970.Analyzing teachingbehavior.Reading,Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. of Gaies, StephenJ.1983a. The investigation language classroomprocesses. TESOL Quarterly 17(2): 205-217. studyof itsrole Gaies, StephenJ. 1983b. Learnerfeedback: an exploratory in the second language classroom. In Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition,HerbertW. Seliger and Michael H. Long Inc. NewburyHouse Publishers, (Eds.), 190-213.Rowley,Massachusetts: Gass, Susan, and Evangeline Marlos Varonis. In press. Negotiation of meaning in non-nativespeaker-non-native speaker conversation.In Input and second language acquisition,Susan Gass and CarolynMadden Inc. NewburyHouse Publishers, (Eds.). Rowley, Massachusetts: Inc. NewburyHouse Publishers, Rowley, Massachusetts: Barbara. In press. Is an "appropriate response" always so Hawkins, appropriate?In Input and second language acquisition,Susan Gass and Carolyn Madden (Eds.). Rowley, Massachusetts:Newbury House PubInc. lishers, Hoetker, James, and William P. Ahlbrand. 1969. The persistenceof the

a second languageperspective. Hatch,Evelyn.1983. Psycholinguistics:

in Hunt, Kellogg W. 1970. Syntacticmaturity school childrenand adults.

Research Educational American recitation. Journal 6(1):145-167.

(Serial No. 134). Krashen,Stephen D. 1980. The inputhypothesis.In GeorgetownRoundtable on Languages and Linguistics,James E. Alatis (Ed.), 168-180. Press. D.C.: GeorgetownUniversity Washington, acquisition.Oxford:PergamonPress. Krashen, Stephen D., and Tracy Terrell. 1983. The natural approach:

53:1 of Monographs the SocietyforResearchin Child Development

and practicein second language Krashen, StephenD. 1982. Principles Press. New York:Pergamon in acquisition theclassroom. language

Littlejohn,Andrew P. 1982. Teacherless language learning groups: an of University Lancaster. Manuscript, experiment. Andrew P. 1983. Increasing learner involvementin course Littlejohn, 17(4):595-608. management.TESOL Quarterly competencein the Long, Michael H. 1975.Group workand communicative ESOL classroom. In On TESOL '75, Marina Burt and Heidi Dulay D.C.: TESOL. (Eds.), 211-233.Washington, of Long, Michael H. 1977.Group workin theteachingand learning English as a foreign EnglishLanguage Teachlanguage-problems and potential. 31(4):285-292. ingJournal
226 TESOL QUARTERLY

and Long, Michael H. 1980. Input,interaction second language acquisition. Ph.D. dissertation, of California,Los Angeles. University and Long, Michael H. 1981.Input,interaction, second language acquisition.

to and conversational Long, Michael H. 1983a. Linguistic adjustments nonnativespeakers.Studiesin Second Language Acquisition5(2):177-193. Long, Michael H. 1983b. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in thesecond language classroom.In On TESOL '82, MarkA. Clarke and D.C.: TESOL. JeanHandscombe (Eds.), 207-225.Washington, Long, Michael H. In press. Input and second language acquisitiontheory. Madden (Eds.). Rowley, Massachusetts:Newbury House Publishers, Inc. Long, Michael H., Leslie Adams,Marilyn McLean, and FernandoCastafios. 1976. Doing thingswithwords: verbal interaction lockstep and small in In group classroom situations. On TESOL '76, Ruth Crymes and John Fanselow (Eds.), 137-153.Washington, D.C.: TESOL. Long, Michael H., and Charlene Sato. 1983. Classroom foreignertalk discourse: forms and functionsof teachers' questions. In Classroom

In Native languageand foreign HarrisWinitz languageacquisition, 379:250-278. (Ed.). Annals theNew York of Academy Sciences of

In Input and second languageacquisition, Susan Gass and Carolyn

Michael H. Long (Eds.), 268-285. Rowley, Massachusetts:Newbury House Publishers, Inc. the McCurdy,Peggy L. 1980. Talking to foreigners: role of rapport.Ph.D. of dissertation, University California, Berkeley. Mehan, Hugh. 1979. "What timeis it,Denise?": askingknowninformation questionsin classroomdiscourse.TheoryintoPractice18(4):285-294. Morrison,Donald M., and Graham Low. 1983. Monitoringand second language learners.In Language and communication, Jack C. Richards and RichardW. Schmidt(Eds.), 228-250.New York: Longman. in Pica, Teresa, and CatherineDoughty.In press.Input and interaction the communicativelanguage classroom: a comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities.In Input and second language acquisition,Susan Gass and Carolyn Madden (Eds.). Rowley, Massachusetts:Newbury House Publishers, Inc. PatriciaA. 1983. Variationsin theconversations adultlearnersof of Porter, of level of the participants. Ph.D. English as a function the proficiency StanfordUniversity. dissertation, Rowe, Mary Budd. 1974. Pausing phenomena:influenceon the qualityof instruction. Journal Psycholinguistic Research3(2):203-224. of Swain, Merrill. In press. Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible inputand comprehensible outputin itsdevelopment.In Input and second language acquisition,Susan Gass and CarolynMadden Inc. (Eds.). Rowley, Massachusetts: NewburyHouse Publishers, Tarone, Elaine E. 1981. Some thoughts the notion of communication on TESOL Quarterly strategy. 15(3):285-295. Varonis,Evangeline Marlos,and Susan Gass. 1983."Targetlanguage"input fromnon-nativespeakers. Paper presentedat the 17thAnnual TESOL Convention,Toronto,March 1983.
GROUP WORK, INTERLANGUAGE TALK, AND SLA 227

oriented research secondlanguage in W. Herbert Seliger and acquisition,

in Wagner, Mary.1983.Inputand interaction the speech modifications of made by NNS-NNS.TermpaperforESL 650.Honolulu: University of Hawaii,Department ESL. in 1983.Asking and answering and PatsyM. Lightbown. White, Joanna, ESL classes.CanadianModern LanguageReview40(2):228-244.

TESOL

TES.OL PUBLICATIONS
SalePrice*
General

Titles! On A40% Announces SALE Selected

31 24 JUNE TOOCTOBER
* Annotated ofESL Materials .... Bibliography
* TheConstruct of of ValidationTests Communicative ............. Competence * TheAcquisition Useof and and Spanish English ........ Languages and AsFirst Second ... * DirectoryTeacher of Programs Preparation InTESOLand Education, Bilingual 1981-1984 .......................... * Classroom in Practices ESLand Education................... Bilingual ESL ......... * Classroom in Practices Adult * OnTESOL'74 ....................... OnTESOL'76 ....................... OnTESOL'78 ....................... OnTESOL'79 ....................... OnTESOL'80 ....................... OnTESOL'81 ....................... OnTESOL'82 ....................... OnTESOL'83 ....................... titles above entire of TESOL listed $30.00.) (The set On
SalePrice*
Members

$7.20 3.90 3.90 3.90 1.20 2.70 3.90 3.90 4.80 7.80 5.70 6.30 6.90 6.90

$6.30 3.30 3.30 3.35 1.05 2.40 3.30 3.30 4.20 6.60 5.10 5.40 6.00 6.00

*ALL PRICES LISTED ARE 40% LESS OF REGULAR TESOL LIST PRICES.

228

TESOL QUARTERLY