CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 73EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesLinguistics and Language Analysis

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

Open access
Bowles, Melissa A., Adams, Rebecca J., Toth, Paul D.·2014·The Modern Language Journal
DOI 10.1111/modl.12086
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/modl.12086

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Learners were more likely to stay in the target language when speaking with an HL learner than with another L2 learner.

    “In addition, learners were more likely to stay in the target language when speaking with an HL learner than with another L2 learner.”

    From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Bowles, Toth & Adams 2014

  • There was a greater amount of talk and more LREs when an HL learner was involved.

    “There was also a greater amount of talk and more LREs when an HL learner was involved.”

    From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Bowles, Toth & Adams 2014

  • Bowles et al. suggest there is an imbalance when L2 learners work with HL learners, with L2 learners receiving more benefit from the interaction than do the HL learners.

    “Bowles et al. suggest that there is an imbalance when L2 learners work with HL learners, with the L2 learners receiving more benefit from the interaction than do the HL learners.”

    From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Bowles, Toth & Adams 2014

  • Bowles, Toth & Adams (2014) found HL-L2 dyads were more likely to reach target-like outcomes during dyadic interaction and negotiation than L2-L2 dyads.

    “For example, Bowles, Toth & Adams (2014), comparing HL-L2 and L2-L2 dyads, found that HL-L2 dyads were more likely to reach target-like outcomes during dyadic interaction and negotiation.”

    From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Bowles, Toth & Adams 2014

  • Bowles et al. (2014) found that interaction was largely similar regardless of whether the interlocutor was a heritage learner or not.

    “They found that interaction was largely similar regardless of whether the interlocutor was an HL learner or not.”

    From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as Bowles et al. 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bowles, M. A., Adams, R. J., & Toth, P. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Northcentral University (US)
  • Temple University (US)
ORCID
Venue
The Modern Language Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-06
Volume
98
Issue
2
Pages
497-517
ISSN
  • 0026-7902 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-4781
DOI
10.1111/modl.12086
OpenAlex
W1591645367
Cited by
71
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3
FWCI
39.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 123 d)
Locations
Modern Language Journal (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
Keywords
heritage language learners, second language learners, task-based interaction, form-focused instruction, conversational norms, Spanish as a second language

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review