(PDF) Constructing content and language knowledge in plurilingual student teamwork: situated and longitudinal perspectives

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism on 09 December 2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947 Constructing content and language knowledge in plurilingual student teamwork: Situated and longitudinal perspectives Abstract This paper explores how students in an Educational Psychology subject in a university L2 immersion context accomplish learning, mobilise their plurilingual repertoires and restructure their participation in carrying out a teamwork task over the course of approximately one week. The study is novel in several ways. Firstly, it aims to fill a gap in the literature by exploring dynamics of knowledge construction in a multilingual, ‘internationalised’ university classroom, a context that is currently underrepresented in research, although increasingly common in practice. Secondly, the theoretical-analytical framework, inspired by socio-constructivism and conversation analysis, lends support to both situated and longitudinal arguments for learning, perspectives that are often examined separately in interactionist literature. Finally, the framework is used to seek evidence of knowledge construction not only in terms of the second language, but also in terms of disciplinary content, and by paying particular attention to how students participate and use their available languages in managing the different task stages. The results not only demonstrate the utility of the proposed framework, but also highlight how the mobilisation of plurilingual repertoires may be advantageous for learning and participation in similar higher education classroom settings and, ultimately, for doing internationalisation. Keywords: Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL); plurilingualism; internationalisation of higher education; teamwork tasks; translanguaging 1. Internationalisation and plurilingualism in a Catalan university classroom It is well known that European universities are immersed in internationalisation, and student exchanges are one way that this is being put into practice. At Catalan universities like the one where this research was carried out, English, explicitly defined as the lingua franca in policies (see Section 3), is being introduced into classroom practices to ensure the participation of incoming students. However, internationalisation is simultaneously taking place at European universities in practices targeting the local population. At the university studied, English is increasingly being introduced through different bilingual immersion strategies in subjects across faculties with the aim of ‘killing two birds with one stone’. Such methodological approaches have tended to be referred to in higher education research under the umbrella terms Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), Integrated Content and Language (ICL) or English Medium Instruction (EMI), although classroom practices differ greatly in terms of the specific objectives and methods adopted in supporting students in the development of second language1 and content knowledge. This paper explores interactions in an Educational Psychology subject delivered in English involving both local and international students. By using English, the teacher aimed both to encourage foreign students to enrol in the subject and to boost local students’ capacity to work within a global academic and professional field dominated by 1 The terms first language (L1) and second language (L2) are used in the paper only to facilitate description. In some cases, participants in the research are bilingual L1 users and the L2 is their third or fourth language. 1 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism on 09 December 2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947 English.2 This particular classroom setting can therefore be understood to simultaneously operate within externally and domestically oriented dynamics of internationalisation. More specifically, the article explores how a group of four local and international student participants accomplish a teamwork task demanded of them in English requiring the management of both content and language-related complexities. In particular, it aims to trace evidence of second language and content knowledge construction, and to observe how students mobilise their available plurilingual3 resources in managing their participation throughout the process of task completion. The research seeks inspiration from the literature on second language and disciplinary content learning in multilingual contexts and on plurilingualism, to which the discussion now turns. 2. Conceptualising second language and content learning 2.1. Understanding the nature of learning The conceptual framework guiding the study is motivated by two complementary approaches to cognition (Mondada and Pekarek Doehler 2004). On the one hand, it draws on socio-constructivist (SC) learning theories, originating in the work of Vygotsky (1934/1986, 1978). From such a perspective, social interaction is understood to be both the embryo of cognitive activities, such as learning, and the natural context for their study. On the other hand, the research is inspired by ethnomethodology (EM) and conversation analysis (CA), in understanding “all cognitive properties of persons as embedded within, and thereby available from, their situated communicative and other forms of activities” (Coulter 1991, 189). That is to say, from SC and EM/CA perspectives, cognition and learning are conceptualised as activities that are intrinsically interactional and socially distributed (Kasper 2008). Following from this, the notion of mediation, originating in Vygostky’s work, proves very useful for understanding the intrinsic relationship between interaction and learning. Mediation refers to how individuals’ achievement of their learning-related goals is often facilitated (Alber and Py, 1985; Py, 1986) or scaffolded (Wood, Bruner, and Ross, 1976) by culturally generated artefacts (e.g. languages, gesture, writing systems, physical objects), activities (e.g. learning tasks) and others (e.g. more expert peers). EM/CA-influenced approaches to cognition have also discussed the notion of mediation (e.g. Mondada and Pekarek Doehler, 2000; Pekarek Doehler, 2009). However, in line with their strongly emic perspective, Pekarek Doehler (2009) proposes the term mediation-in-interaction to take into account how different elements which potentially come into the mediational process (e.g. the use of available languages, the organisation of learning tasks, participation frameworks and learning goals themselves) can be explained as interactional accomplishments rather than be taken-for-granted. Expanding the SC paradigm and providing a further challenge to conventional 2 This claim is based on data collected ethnographically, through semi-structured interviews and informal discussions with the teacher. Such data, however, is not central to the objectives of this paper and is therefore not presented here. 3 The term plurilingualism is used to refer to individual competences or to the emergence of more than one language within the same interaction. The term multilingualism is used to acknowledge the social or institutional presence of two or more languages; for example, in policy documents or degree programs. 2 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism on 09 December 2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947 conceptualisations of learning as an individual process of internalisation, the work by Lave and Wenger (1991) and Wenger (1998) introduces the notion of communities of practice (CoP) (see also Brouwer and Wagner 2004). These authors describe participation in concrete, tangible, shared social activities as a constitutive element of a social theory of learning. According to Wenger (1998, 214), “learning is an integral part of our everyday lives. It is part of our participation in communities and organisations”. Central to this theory is the concept of legitimate peripheral participation, which is used to conceptualise learning as a shift from novice to expert ways of doing. Similarly, language socialisation approaches with SC theory aim to account for social, cultural and cognitive dimensions of development by focusing on processes “by which novices or newcomers in a community or culture gain communicative competence, membership, and legitimacy in the group” (Duff 2007, 308). These two approaches thus have much in common and offer an appealing framework for contextualising and theorising learning across time and tasks (Duff and Kobayashi 2010). 2.2. Evidence of second language and content learning in EM/CA The above discussion raises questions about evidence of learning in interactionist research. Second language acquisition (SLA) studies in this tradition tend towards relativism and usually investigate learning as a situated social action, as opposed to a longitudinal activity (Mori 2007), or what Firth and Wagner (2007) call ‘doing learning’. In such research, sequences are analysed in which participants are engaging in second language learning by temporarily attending to more than just communication (Firth and Wagner 2007). This is the case in data from ordinary and classroom interactions discussed, for example, in Brouwer (2003), De Pietro, Matthey and Py (1989), Krafft and Dausendschön-Gay (1994), Firth and Wagner (2007) and Moore (2011). In his learning behaviour tracking methodology, Markee (2008) uses CA to pinpoint moments when particular second language objects are oriented to in interaction, or what he calls learning object tracking. In all of these studies, speakers and hearers are seen to momentarily focalise (Bange 1992) and sometimes display more or less immediate output of a novel aspect from a second language. Such potential acquisition sequences (De Pietro et al. 1989, Krafft and Dausendschön-Gay 1994) often emerge as a result of repair (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977; see Markee 2008); one of the basic building blocks of interaction and a phenomenon that emerges frequently in the data presented in this article. However, in the classroom interactions analysed herein, the ways participants momentarily focus on objects from both the second language and the disciplinary content are of interest. In this regard, Barwell (2003, 2005) uses the CA-inspired notion of attention for exploring how both second language and content-related elements of a task temporarily come under the lens in interaction between students. Similarly, Gajo (2007) explores how problematic aspects of a second language – what he calls opacity – and from disciplinary content – density – are momentarily transformed into learning objects in bilingual immersion classrooms. Drawing on the SC framework, he uses the notions of mediation or conceptualisation to refer to the process of attending to subject density, and remediation or clarification to refer to sequences in which opaque aspects of the second language are dealt with in interaction. The following fragment from a Science Education subject taught in English at the university under study illustrates the explanatory power of these notions for 3 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism on 09 December 2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947 understanding situated content and language learning. The data is from a group of five Catalan students (MON: Monica, LAI: Laia, SAN: Sandra, SER: Sergi, MAR: Maria) working in a laboratory. In the sequence, students are carrying out a task in which they formulate questions as a group that could be asked to primary school pupils about apples. Here, the question refers to the ‘reproduction’ of apples. Fragment 1 1 SAN: NOW\ (0.4) the (0.8) the repro- (0.2) [the way of] 2 reproducing\= 3 LAI: [xxx xxx] 4 SER: =e:h 5 (0.2) 6 SAN: the way of reproducing\ (.) or the way (0.7) 7 ((to SER) tu sabes xx (germinan?)) &SAN: ((to SER) you know xx (germinate?)) 8 (1.9) 9 MAR: com creixen\= &MAR: how they grow\= 10 SAN: =how grow up\ (.) how the apples reproduce\ 11 (0.2) 12 LAI: grow\= 13 SAN: =they (0.6) es que no sé xx\ &SAN: =they (0.6) it’s that i don’t know xx\ 14 (3.5) 15 SER: ((to the voice recorder) com es diu reproduir\) &SER: ((to the voice recorder) how do you say reproduce\) 16 (.) 17 ALL: ((laugh)) 18 SAN: ((laughing) es reproduce\) &SAN: ((laughing) it’s reproduce\) 19 (1.2) 20 SAN: [es reproduce\] &SAN: [it’s reproduce\] 21 SER: [ho:w- how do] the apples reproduce/= 22 SAN: =es reproduce\ &SAN: =it’s reproduce\ 23 (0.2) 24 SER: [itself/] 25 MAR: [repro]duce/ 26 (0.8) 27 SAN: ((laughing) es que éste es el problema\) &SAN: ((laughing) it’s that this is the problem\) In lines 1-2 it becomes clear that Sandra is experiencing trouble in formulating her idea, displayed through her self-interruption and reformulation (“the repro…the way of reproducing”). Sergi hesitates in line 4 and Sandra repeats the idea in line 6, but her “or” cues a search for an alternative way of expressing it. She switches to Spanish in line 7 (a discussion that will be returned to in section 3 of this article) and looks to Sergi for assistance, apparently looking for the word to express the concept of ‘germination’ (“germinan”). In line 9, Maria introduces another notion – in Catalan – being that of ‘growth’ (“com creixen”). Sandra translates Maria’s intervention into English (“how grow up”) in her following turn (line 10) and then repeats the question using the verb “reproduce”. She therefore makes it clear that the problem for her is not just with the translation of the verbs into English. However, in line 12, Laia translates Maria’s 4 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism on 09 December 2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947 proposed verb (“grow”), suggesting that she interprets Sandra’s problem as a linguistic one. In line 13 Sandra’s search continues. She again switches to Spanish in expressing her trouble. After a few moments of silence, Sergi takes the voice recorder off the table and asks ‘it’ in Catalan for the translation of the verb “reproduir” (line 15). Therefore, he also demonstrates his interpretation of Sandra’s difficulty as being linguistic. Following laughter, however, Sandra again displays her knowledge of how to translate the verb into English (“reproduce”, lines 18, 20 and 22). Sergi formulates the complete question, “how do the apples reproduce”, in line 21. Yet, Maria, who had previously proposed ‘grow’, questions the adequacy of the verb “reproduce” (line 25). At the same time, Sergi questions whether the verb is reflexive (“itself”, line 24). Sandra then explains – in Spanish – that these are precisely the sorts of problems she has been getting at (line 27). Thus, the analysis demonstrates how different students direct their attention at diverse learning objects in the process of task completion. While Sandra primarily focalises the scientific concept of reproduction (density), some of her peers interpret the trouble as the simple translation of that concept into English (opacity). In both cases, following the conceptual framework constructed until now, such attention to linguistic and content-related aspects of the task constitutes an environment conducive to knowledge construction. However, although this theoretical agenda is useful for studying learning as a situated activity, another perspective emerging in SC and EM/CA research seeks to account for learning as a longitudinal process as well. This approach has posed both conceptual and practical challenges for EM/CA (Brouwer and Wagner 2004; Mori 2007; Markee 2008); yet some recent studies have begun to provide confirmation of EM/CA’s potential for documenting development over time (e.g. Brouwer and Wagner 2004, Firth and Wagner 2007, Markee 2008). This is what Firth and Wagner (2007) refer to as an evidential argument for learning. Markee (2008, 409) refers to EM/CA’s potential for learning process tracking, which “involves developing conversation analyses of how and when participants orient to, and potentially incorporate, particular learning objects that occur in different speech events in their interactional repertoires”. Brouwer and Wager (2004) suggest a more encompassing CA learning framework, similar to CoP and socialisation approaches, in seeking to trace the complex ways in which participation is achieved and altered, in which the character of interaction changes, and in which interactional resources are established across encounters (see also Evnitskaya and Morton 2011, Young and Miller 2004). They focus, among other aspects, on the organisation of repair and on how plurilingual repertoires are drawn on in accomplishing talk over time – phenomena that are relevant to the present study. Drawing on the framework outlined in this section, in this paper an analysis is presented to support both situated and longitudinal arguments for learning in an Educational Psychology university subject. One of the novelties of the study lies in the fact that such evidence is sought not only in terms of second language development, but also in terms of the disciplinary content. Before engaging with this analysis, however, support for the conceptualisation of plurilingualism as a resource for knowledge construction, among other available cultural artefacts, will be put forward. 5 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism on 09 December 2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947 3. Plurilingualism as a resource for second language and content learning Despite significant evidence to the contrary (see research cited in this section), researchers working within the field of multilingual education continue to face the challenge of deconstructing deeply rooted conceptualisations about what it means to be a ‘competent’ plurilingual individual. From a monolingual bias, such competence would amount to no more than the simple addition of languages acquired separately, and terms such as interlanguage could help account for apparent deficiencies in a speakers’ developing plurilingual repertoire (Lüdi and Py 2009). However, a large body of non- mainstream SLA research has successfully demonstrated how plurilingual speakers have a unique and single plurilingual competence, the complexity of which cannot be understood by simply looking at their skills in different languages (e.g. Firth and Wagner 1997, 2007, Lüdi and Py 2003 2009). Such contributions have in common an underlying critique of approaches to language as a monolithic construct consisting of discrete, cognitively embedded skills, in favour of conceptualisations of languaging (Becker 1995) as a practical social action. According to Lüdi and Py (2009), a useful step to understanding the complexity of such competence would be to replace the misleading notion of competence all together. They suggest instead referring to the resources available to plurilingual individuals in interaction with others for the achievement of different interactional, social, institutional and cognitive ends, including the accomplishment of learning tasks (e.g. Barwell 2003, 2005, Gajo 2007, García and Sylvan 2011, Liebscher and Dailey- O'Cain 2005, Moore, 2011, Moore, Nussbaum, and Borràs 2013; Moschkovich 2002, Ustunel and Seedhouse 2005). This approach to plurilingual competence “presupposes the existence of a free and active subject who has amassed a repertoire of resources and who activates this repertoire according to his/her need, knowledge or whims, modifying or combining them where necessary” (Lüdi and Py 2009, 159). Plurilingual competence is therefore highly contingent and unique, in that it is intimately linked to the lived experiences of the individual. In this regard, Cook (1991, 2007) coined the notion of multicompetence to account for the “continually changing relationship between two or more language systems that are themselves constantly changing” (2007, 209). Drawing on this author, Hall, Cheng and Carlson (2006, 229) argue that all language knowledge is unstable, social and dynamic – no matter how many languages the individual has access to – with “the differences across users based not on number of languages but on amount and diversity of experiences and use”. Different authors have used diverse concepts to describe specific practices or ways or mobilising resources that help constitute such plurilingual or multicompetence. Auer (1984) discussed the notion of conversational codeswitching to refer to how plurilingual speakers meaningfully juxtapose resources from different language systems. García (2009) introduced the more encompassing notion of translanguaging – building on the idea of languaging introduced above – to talk about hybridity in multilingual classrooms for engaging in complex meaning making practices through language. García and Sylvan (2011, 389) explain: Translanguaging includes codeswitching […] and it also includes translation, but it differs from both of these simple practices in that it refers to the process in which bilingual students 6 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism on 09 December 2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947 make sense and perform bilingually in the myriad of ways of classrooms – reading, writing, taking notes, discussing, signing, and so on. However, translanguaging is not only a way to scaffold instruction and to make sense of learning and language; it is part of the discursive regimes that students in the 21st century must perform, part of the linguistic repertoire that includes, at times, the ability to function in the standardized academic languages required in schools. It is thus important to view translanguaging as complex discursive practices that enable bilingual students to also develop and enact standard academic ways of languaging. The notion of translanguaging is thus central to constructing an understanding of plurilingualism as it materialises in multilingual classroom settings, and contributes to overlapping social processes, including knowledge construction. In this regard, a large body of research has demonstrated the precise ways in which plurilingualism in formal learning contexts may contribute to the construction of language and content knowledge and facilitate academic task completion. For example, Nussbaum and her colleagues (e.g. Nussbaum and Unamuno 2000, 2006, Masats, Nussbaum and Unamuno 2007) have extensively researched student interaction during L2 pair and group work school classroom tasks in order to trace the development of L2 oral communicative competences. Their research has revealed a progressive reduction in terms of how much students depend on resources from their L1(s) in eventually completing academic tasks. That is to say, they increasingly orient to the L2 unilingual mode (one language at a time) demanded of them by the academic context, or to standard academic languaging practices. Similarly, having followed the process of a group of Japanese ESL students’ preparation for a university class presentation in English, Duff and Kobayashi (2010) report that codeswitching into Japanese was initially quite common among the students. Interestingly, though, the students gradually reduced their recourse to L1 as the presentation got closer, demonstrating their acquisition of the second language as well as their socialisation into institutional expectations about the use of English. Emerging research into plurilingual interaction in different classroom immersion contexts (e.g. CLIL, ICL, EMI) at different levels of education has also demonstrated that the plurilingual mode (all languages at all times) may both facilitate and help create novel opportunities for the treatment of knowledge objects coming not only from the second language, but also from the disciplinary content. Gajo and his colleagues (Gajo and Berthoud 2008, Gajo and Grobet 2008) claim that the L2 unilingual mode in such classrooms can often be linked to the simplification the subject content or density. According to these authors, the plurilingual mode can be considered an advantage in two respects. On the one hand, plurilingual practices help bring situated negotiations of knowledge to fruition, or what they call completion. On the other, the mobilisation of other languages can help in the accomplishment of sufficient complexity in terms of the academic subject, or saturation. These affirmations are supported by Smit’s (2010, 367) research into English lingua franca classroom interaction in an international university program in Austria. Although not focusing explicitly on codeswitching, her data reveals how German becomes “established as a fall-back option” and takes on a “supportive function” in students’ mediation with the disciplinary content. Although a discussion of the complexity of lingua franca is beyond the scope of this paper (see, however, Moore, Borràs and Nussbaum, 2013), it is relevant to clarify that when referring to such talk – as one form of plurilingualism available to individuals who have more than one language at their disposal – it is language use rather than language learning that is primarily at stake 7 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism on 09 December 2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947 for both analyst and interactional participants. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that non-standard features are ‘let pass’ (Firth 1996) in the course of interaction, or that practices of translanguaging emerge in dealing with emerging contingencies, such as those affecting academic task accomplishment. The analysis presented here, however, reveals that even in lingua franca talk, the L2 can be transformed into an object of learning. Drawing on these insights, the remainder of this paper focuses on how a small group of local and international student participants in a university-level Educational Psychology subject deal with a teamwork task demanded of them in English over time. The following section briefly introduces the data, before turning to the analysis. 4. Exploring knowledge construction in ‘internationalised’ student teamwork The Educational Psychology course, an elective subject offered in the bachelor’s degree in Psychology at a public Catalan university, is organised around two weekly sessions. In one of these sessions, the teacher leads a lecture in English and sets assessment tasks. In the second session, a small group of students leads a theoretical presentation and a discussion about a scientific article they have read in English as part of their assessment. Languages besides English were not explicitly contemplated by the teacher a priori, or at the level of meso-alternation (Duverger 2007). The analysis in this paper centres on the process followed by a group of two Catalan students – Ariadna (ARI) and Gisela (GIS) – and two international students – Emine (EMI) from Turkey and Camilla (CAM) from Belgium (Figure 1) – in preparation for their presentation. Observations of the data as well as biographical information available to the researcher suggest that the students are all quite proficient in English, while the local students’ background in Psychology is stronger than that of the international students. The article that the students are working on is entitled, ‘The Relationship Between Career Variables and Occupational Aspirations and Expectations for Australian High School Adolescents’ (Patton and Creed 2007). [Insert Figure 1 here] The teamwork meeting studied in section 4.1 took place in a study room at a university library outside of class time. The students were left alone with a video camera and an audio recorder and were asked by the researcher to document their meeting from start to finish. The complete recorded interaction lasts approximately 34 minutes. The researcher also collected the students’ individual study notes on the day of their presentation, one week after the teamwork meeting. The teams’ recorded presentation lasts approximately 54 minutes and was collected by the researcher, who was also present in the classroom. This data is explored in section 4.2. After working through the teamwork data a large number of times, specific sequences of interaction were chosen for transcription and analysis that documented instances when particular objects from either the second language or the disciplinary content were attended to by participants. Following this, the students’ notes and their presentation were scanned for attention to those same objects. Throughout the process of analysis, changes in students’ participation and use of plurilingual resources across the data were also documented. Furthermore, in line with the CA approach, a multimodal 8 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism on 09 December 2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947 analysis was carried out to take into account not only talk, but also other multimodal features of interaction that may help configure the learning context and mediate knowledge construction. These features are represented in the video stills included below the transcripts. The analysis is organised as follows: in section 4.1, three sequences in which students locally attend to particular learning objects (i.e. the meaning of certain psychological variables) are explored. In section 4.2, a longitudinal argument for how those same objects are incorporated into the students’ interactional repertoire (Markee 2008) is formulated, and changes in participation and the use of languages over time are highlighted. This is done by focusing on the trajectory of Gisela, the student displaying the most difficulty during the teamwork meeting. 4.1 Tracing the situated emergence of learning objects At the beginning of the recorded teamwork interaction, students negotiate how to position the camera. Following this, Gisela orients the group to the academic task at hand by raising a doubt, as can be observed in the opening of Fragment 2. Fragment 2 1 GIS: I read something of the article in the internet but (1.0) i 2 don't understand very well\ 3 (0.5) 4 ARI: no/ 5 (0.9) 6 GIS: because of the concepts\ (0.5) occupational aspirations (0.2) 7 career status aspirations (0.4) i don't kno:w\ 8 (0.5) 9 EMI: hm:\ 10 (0.3) 11 GIS: the difference between (0.3) occupational/ (0.5) and career 12 status/ (0.1) i don't know\ (0.1) what is the difference\ 13 (1.3) 14 CAM: let me see:/ (0.1) occupational and 15 (3.0) 16 GIS: a::hm::\ 17 (2.3) 18 CAM: occupatio[nal aspira:tions] 19 ARI: [i don't know] but that is related with the skills you 20 have\ (.) if you have go to the university: only to the hi:gh 21 schoo:l only primary: (0.4) s- (0.3) studies (0.6) [i don't] 22 know if it has- if it's related to this\ 23 STU: [hah ah\] 24 (0.2) 25 GIS: it’s related to the: fig. 2(0.3) trajectory/ 26 (0.1) 27 ARI: hm: 28 (0.1) 29 STU: ah 30 GIS: it's corr[ect/] 31 EMI: [ok\] 32 (1.3) 33 GIS: it's correct tra- ((laughing) trajectory/) 34 (.) 35 CAM: [wha:t the:/] 9 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism on 09 December 2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947 36 EMI: [traject]o[ry (no?)\] 37 ARI: [((laughs))] 38 GIS: [the fig. 3tra[ject-]] the ay\ com se diu això\= fig. 3 &GIS: [the tra[ject-]] the ay\ how do you say that\= 39 STU: [xx] 40 CAM: =tra[ject/] fig. 4 41 ARI: [the:] the: the per- the:- (0.4) what do you mean\ 42 (0.6) 43 GIS: la trajectòria\ &GIS: the trajectory\ 44 (0.3) 45 ARI: però: acadèmica/ &ARI: bu:t academic/ 46 (0.3) 47 GIS: sí:\ &GIS: ye:s\ 48 (0.1) 49 ARI: like the: eh: eh: (0.2) a[ca]demic history well [the:] 50 CAM: [ok\] 51 EMI: [yea:h 52 [yea:h xx [xx\]] 53 CAM:[yeah yeah yeah [yeah\]] 54 GIS: [yes\] [Insert Figures 2, 3 and 4 here] The doubt expressed by Gisela about “the concepts” is two-fold: on the one hand, she does not understand the difference between ‘career’ and ‘occupation’ and, on the other, between ‘aspirations’ and ‘expectations’ (lines 1-12). Camilla skims over the article with Gisela in lines 14-18, looking to locate those terms. In lines 19-22, Ariadna suggests that ‘occupational aspirations’ and ‘career status aspirations’ are related to one’s level of studies. In line 25, Gisela initiates a word search, evidenced by her sound stretching and iconic gesture (placing the palms of her hands parallel to each other at a distance, as though to indicate a time span, see Figure 2) asking if they are related to one’s “trajectory”. There is consensus in the group, however, that “trajectory” is incorrect in English (lines 27-37) and so the word search continues. In line 38, Gisela looks to Ariadna and, again facing her palms into each other and moving them up and down (Figure 3), she repeats the word, before producing a self-interruption and switching to Catalan to seek repair from Ariadna. Ariadna continues the word search in line 41, producing a slightly different, circular gesture (Figure 4). She begins to suggest a word, “per(iod?)”, before self- interrupting and asking Gisela to clarify what she means. Gisela translates the word into Catalan, “trajectòria” (line 43) and Ariadna seeks further clarification – also in Catalan – about whether Gisela is referring to the academic trajectory (line 45). Gisela assents in her following turn and Ariadna continues the word search, suggesting “academic history” as the correct term (line 49). Agreement from her peers in lines 50-54 suggests that the word search has been successful. In Fragment 3, however, from slightly later in the teamwork discussion, it becomes apparent that the task still presents certain conceptual and linguistic problems for Gisela. She proposes that ‘career’ is not only related to one’s academic history, as has 10 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism on 09 December 2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947 been established previously, and asks her peers to confirm their understanding of the word (lines 1-6). Fragment 3 1 GIS: bu::t (1.7) it's not only the aca- the academic (0.2) history\ 2 (0.1) career\ 3 (2.9) 4 EMI: ºahº\ 5 (0.1) 6 GIS: what do you inter- what do you understand (0.1) fo:r career\ 7 (1.0) 8 EMI: ºcareer\º 9 (0.1) 10 ARI: it's from the time when you FINISH the universityfig. 5/ 11 (.) 12 CAM: hm yeah\ 13 (0.3) 14 GIS: ah\ 15 (0.1) 16 ARI: it's [because in our language] 17 GIS: [and you: sta:rt-] 18 ARI> [CARRERA] &ARI> [CAREER] 19 GIS: [you start\] 20 (0.2) 21 ARI: it's [very] similar to career but [it's on]ly the degree\ 22 STU: [hm hm\] 23 GIS: [ye:s\] 24 (0.1) 25 CAM: a::h [ok no no\] 26 ARI: [and we are always confused about] it\ [Insert Figure 5 here] In response to Gisela’s question, in line 10 Ariadna argues that career is “from the time you finish the university…”. In that same line, after saying “university”, she produces an embodied completion (Olsher 2004, Mori and Hayashi 2006) of her turn, moving her hands in an upward motion as though to metaphorically express future time, in unison with Gisela, who thereby displays her understanding of what Ariadna is expressing (Figure 5). Camilla agrees and in line 14 Gisela’s “ah” could be interpreted as another token of her comprehension. Ariadna, who understands the source of Gisela’s misunderstanding, explains to their peers that a ‘false friend’ in Spanish and Catalan, “carrera”, means “degree” in English (lines 16, 18, 21 and 26). Gisela, in overlap, expands the definition of career: when “you start” (something else) (lines 17 and 19). The group verbalises a new consensus at the end of the fragment. Yet it becomes apparent from Fragment 4 – later in the meeting – that certain aspects of the task continue to present difficulties for Gisela; she is still not sure about the exact meaning of the different variables. Immediately prior to the fragment, she has been skimming the article. The fragment begins with her expressing what she later describes as a language difficulty. Fragment 4 1 GIS: ºés que jo xxxx què és career\º 11 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism on 09 December 2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947 &GIS: ºit’s that i xxxx what career is\º 2 (0.4) 3 ARI: o sigui career és la carrera professional\ &ARI: so career is the professional career\ 4 (.) 5 GIS: sí sí\ (0.7) però\ (0.5) és que- l’ocupació/ &GIS: yes yes\ (0.7) but\ (0.5) it’s that- the occupation/ 6 (1.6) 7 ARI: clar tu dintre de la teva carrera professional tindras 8 diferents- sorry just a [moment\] &ARI: of course you within your professional career will have different- sorry just a [moment\] 9 CAM: [(nada] pues?)\ &CAM: [(no worries] then?)\ 10 (0.1) 11 EMI: [yeah\] 12 GIS: [yeah] because i have a ((laughing) difficult [with the:])= 13 CAM: [((laughs))]= 14 ARI: =són difer[ents:] &ARI: =they’re differ[ent:] 15 GIS> [lan]guage\ 16 (0.9) 17 ARI: diferents ocupacions vull di:r\ (0.8) jo què sé com la carrera 18 esportiu pues la carrera professional\ &ARI: different occupations i mean\ (0.8) i don’t know like the sporting career well the professional career\ 19 (0.6) 20 ARI: és que no sé si entenc molt bé el que m'estàs demanant 21 [potser\] &ARI: it’s that i don’t know if i really understand what you are asking [maybe\] 22 GIS:[sí sí sí] sí sí\ (0.4) és que no entenc o sigui no entenc la 23 diferència entre (1.5) hm:\ (0.08) hm:\ (2.2) és que no em: no 24 em recordo\ &GIS:[yes yes yes] yes yes\ (0.4) it’s that i don’t understand i mean i don’t understand the difference between (1.5) hm:\ (0.08) hm:\ (2.2) it’s that i don’t i: i don’t remember\ 25 (0.7) 26 ARI: entre estatus i xx l’ocupació-= &ARI: between status and xx the occupation-= 27 GIS: =sí lo de l'estatus i: la aspiration la expectation i tot 28 això\ &GIS: =yes the thing about the status a:nd the aspiration the expectation and all that\ 29 (0.5) 30 ARI: well i think that aspiration is what you want\ (0.2) and 31 expectation is so:me somehow more realistic what you think you 32 will have\ 33 (0.1) 34 GIS: sí it's [more XX\] 12 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism on 09 December 2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947 &GIS: yes it's [more XX\] 35 ARI: [for example i wa- my] aspiration is to be rich\ 36 (0.5) but i won't be rich\ (0.5) so i expect to not be rich\ 37 (0.6) 38 EMI: yeah\ 39 (0.1) 40 ARI: so perhap- perhaps i can aspirate to a: have to be a doctor 41 (0.5) but as my:- i am not studying (0.1) for example i know 42 that i won't be a doctor so i\ (0.5) i don't expect to be a: 43 doctor\ 44 (0.5) 45 ARI: and they measure (0.3) this 46 (0.5) 47 GIS: but it's more realistic (0.3) the: the expectations that you 48 [have\] that- [than] the: aspirations\ 49 ARI: [yeah\] 50 ARI: [yeah\] 51 (0.2) 52 ARI: the aspiration [is the ideal-] idealistic one you [choose\] 53 GIS: [aspirations\] 54 CAM: [like] dreams 55 [yeah\] 56 ARI:[yeah\] Despite the definitions constructed earlier in the interaction (Fragments 2 and 3), Gisela still struggles to understand the distinction made in the article between ‘career’ and ‘occupation’, on the one hand, and ‘aspirations’ and ‘expectations’, on the other. She switches to Catalan, lowering her voice and addressing Ariadna at the beginning of the fragment. The pair apologises to Camilla and Emine for the switch, and proceeds to resolve the first of Gisela’s doubts – in Catalan – related to the difference between ‘career’ and ‘occupational’. The pair then locates the source of Gisela's second problem: the difference between ‘aspiration’ and ‘expectation’ (lines 26 and 27). Ariadna then switches back to English, ending the exchange between the two girls, to define to concepts by taking them out of the academic context of the article and recontextualising (Lüdi and Py 2009, Py 2007) them in more layman’s terms in the first person (lines 30 – 43). Following this, the group reaches consensus on the definition of the terms. The analysis thus far demonstrates how, in constructing their understandings of the variables, students are forced to focalise certain aspects of the second language that emerge as problematic; such as the meaning of the word ‘career’, or the correct word to express ‘trajectory’ in English. Students can be seen to recur to codeswitching (always initiated by Gisela) when a solution to communicative or conceptual trouble is not satisfactorily accomplished in English or through multimodal means (e.g. by initially using iconic gesturing in word searches, such as in the case of “trajectory”, Fragment 1, lines 25 and 38). This lends support to the claim that recourse to plurilingualism helps achieve completion in terms of negotiation in L2, and saturation in terms of the conceptualisation of the psychological content (Gajo and Berthoud 2008, Gajo and Grobet, 2008) in sequences such as those explored, in which the unilingual mode appears to become insufficient in mediating knowledge construction. 13 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism on 09 December 2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947 The analysis further highlights the different participant roles taken on by the group members, with Gisela clearly positioning herself as a non-expert both in terms of the use of English and in terms of the psychological content being dealt with. Using Auer’s (1998) terminology, her use of Catalan in the fragments is both competence- related, in indexing her difficulty, and discourse-related, in that it serves to select Ariadna as her primary interlocutor. This positioning by Gisela may, in turn, be related to the fact that Ariadna knows more about psychology than the international peers, who, it was revealed at one point in the meeting, had not even read the article. However, it is interesting to note that despite this reality, Camilla and Emine take on expert stances throughout the interaction – alongside Ariadna – by being active in group agreements. Their confidence with English arguably compensates for their little background in the field of psychology. Keeping in mind the findings discussed thus far, in the following section of the analysis evidence is sought of longitudinal development, giving prominence in the discussion to how emerging learning objects are dealt with, to how plurilingual resources are mobilised and to how participation evolves over time. 4.2 Tracing learning longitudinally As has been mentioned above, following the teamwork meeting, the students agreed to re-read the article and work individually to prepare for their particular parts of the presentation, given one week later. Their study notes and the presentation itself were documented, and it is these two sources of data that are focused on in this section. Specifically, the process followed by Gisela is put under the spotlight. The analysis reveals that when re-reading the article following the teamwork meeting, all students took notes in the margins, often in their L1, and highlighted or underlined certain sections. However, it is interesting to note that on her copy of the article, Gisela made some annotations defining two of the terms that emerged as problematic during the teamwork interaction analysed in the previous section in Catalan: ‘aspirations’ and ‘expectations’ (Figure 6). Her definitions are a reformulation/translation of those that were constructed by the group in Fragment 4, analysed above. She describes aspirations as being “algo més idealista” (“a little more idealistic”) and expectations as “algo més realista” (“a little more realistic”). Gisela thus displays her plurilingual incorporation of learning objects from the teamwork meeting in her individual, written work. [Insert Figure 6 here] Finally, during Gisela’s intervention in the group presentation, the last step in the task process, she has the job of narrating the results of the experiment referred to in the article with the support of slides in English and some handwritten notes, also in that language (Figure 7). In her notes, reproduced below for ease of reading, Gisela circles the same terms that were defined during the teamwork meeting and annotated on her copy of the article (“aspired”, line 2; “expectations”, line 5; “expected”, line 9), thus displaying her continued attention to the appropriate meaning and use of the 14 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism on 09 December 2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947 psychological variables. A shift is observed, however, in Gisela’s exclusive use of English. [Insert Figure 7 here] Reproduction of Gisela’s handwritten notes (see Figure 9): 1 As we can see in the results of RIASEC, the aspired categories that 2 were most frequently aspired were à Investigative, Social and 3 Realistic. and Enterprising and Conventional were asp least 4 frequently aspired. 5 For expectations the results are more or least the same xx because 6 x the categories more expected were Social, Realistic and 7 Investigative but with different (percentajes) percentajes, and 8 another time conventional and entrerprising categories were least 9 the categories x least expected by students. Fragment 5 provides further evidence of how Gisela appropriates the problematised terms in her discourse during her part of the presentation. Moreover, it illustrates a clear change in the way Gisela positions herself in terms of her expertise in managing the psychological content and her participation in the target language. Interestingly, in Fragment 5, the same two terms that have previously emerged – ‘aspirations’ and ‘expectations’ – are focused on by the teacher (Neus: NEU) as central to the students’ learning. She interrupts Gisela during her speech (line 13) and asks her to explain the difference between them (lines 17-20). Fragment 5 1 GIS: ok\ (0.8) as we can see in the results of RIASEC\ (0.6) ah 2 categories that were most frequently expect- a:h aspirate\ 3 (0.3) by: students were investigative/ (0.5) social and 4 realistic\ (0.7) and the categories that were least aspired by 5 students were enterprising and conventional\ (0.9) a:h for 6 expectations happened more or less the same because the 7 categories that were most expected by students/ (0.6) were 8 social realistic and investigative\ (0.2) but with different 9 percentage\ (0.5) and the categories that were mo:- (0.6) hm: 10 less ex- EXPECT by students were conventional/ (0.3) 11 conventional and enterprising\ (0.8) categories\ 12 (0.8) 13 NEU: gisela\ 14 (0.6) 15 GIS: yes\ 16 (0.3) 17 NEU: can you remind us (0.3) what's the difference (0.5) between 18 the aspirations= 19 GIS: =oh yes\= 20 NEU: =and the expectations\ 21 (0.2) 22 GIS: aspirations is more idealistic (0.7) it's e:h what you aspire 23 to do in: (0.5) in your life and expectation is e:h more 24 realistic\ 25 (1.5) 26 NEU: very good\ 15 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism on 09 December 2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947 In response to the teacher’s question, Gisela contrasts the two concepts in English, producing definitions that are very similar to the ones reached both collaboratively in the group work discussion and, also, to those she had noted in Catalan on her copy of the article (lines 22-24). The teacher’s acceptance of those definitions (“very good”, line 26) makes it apparent that the task has been successfully completed. That is to say, Gisela has progressed to a position of expert in handling the knowledge at hand in unilingual mode; not only does she display her understanding of the concepts, but she also demonstrates her ability to articulate definitions in fluent, public discourse in English. The analysis in this section, therefore, not only provides evidence of longitudinal development in terms of Gisela’s grasp of the learning objects and her related shifting role in completing the task. By focusing on her translanguaging practices, it also lends support to the argument that the plurilingual mode, or the possibility of mobilising resources from different languages, scaffolds successful accomplishment of learning tasks in an L2. That is, when focusing on the objects oriented to by the group (4.1) and on the process followed by Gisela in expertly incorporating those objects into her discourse in English (4.2), a shift is observed from group and individual work done in plurilingual mode, to a unilingual final product. 5. Conclusions The preceding analysis and discussion demonstrate the utility of the theoretical-analytical framework constructed in this article to support both situated and longitudinal arguments for learning, based on both socio-constructivist and ethnomethodological/conversation analytic insights into cognition. On the one hand, the analysis suggested that students primarily focalised learning objects from their discipline, or the subject density, over the course of task completion. In cases where the remediation of language problems, or opacity, was traced, this work on the second language was seen to emerge in sequential environments in which the students’ attention was primarily directed at the subject knowledge required for successful completion of the task. Such findings help legitimise the use of a second language for learning academic content, as it seems the latter remains participants’ primary concern. On the other hand, in constructing such knowledge, and despite languages besides English not being explicitly contemplated as potential resources for their learning, the analysis revealed how students mobilised their L1 in facilitating their access to learning objects. Furthermore, by taking a longitudinal perspective in examining the data, inspired in part by CoP and language socialisation approaches and focusing on the participation over time of one student, changes were noted in terms of how plurilingual competence was mobilised and legitimacy was accomplished in terms of second language and content knowledge. In this regard, Figure 8 is representative in summarising the flow observed from plurilingual to eventual unilingual modes of participation in the task. These observations lend support to arguments in favour of plurilingualism in L2 immersion university settings as a resource ensuring participation and facilitating clarification, conceptualisation and saturation of emerging knowledge objects (see also Gajo and Berthoud 2008, Moore, Nussbaum, and Borràs 2013). [Insert Figure 8 here] 16 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism on 09 December 2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947 Ultimately, this paper aims to contribute to a greater understanding of how knowledge is constructed and of how learning may be studied from both situated and longitudinal perspectives in the complex context of multilingual, ‘internationalised’ university classrooms. Similar studies are currently scarce in the literature, although such scenarios are becoming increasingly widespread in European higher education – and elsewhere – and call for closer examination. Furthermore, returning to the broader issue of internationalisation and the growing introduction of English with which this article began, the results provide grassroots insights into how such strategies may be achieved in harmony with existing plurilingual dynamics at European universities and beyond. Appendix: Transcription conventions 1. Speaker: ABC: 2. Unidentified speaker: STU 3. Intonation: a. Falling: \ b. Rising: / 4. Pauses: b. Timed: (no seconds) a. Micro (less than a tenth of a second): (.) 5. Overlapping: [text] 6. Latching: = 7. Interruption: text- 8. Lengthening of a sound: te:xt 9. EMPHATIC 10. ºsoftº 11. Incomprehensible fragment: xxxx 12. Dubious transcription: (text?) 13. Language: a. Catalan b. English c. Spanish d. Could be Catalan or Spanish 14. Continuation of a previous turn: speaker> 15. Transcriber’s comments: ((comment)) 16. Translation below a turn: &ABC: 17. Approximate instant when video still was taken: fig. 1 References Alber, J.-L., and B. Py. 1985. “Interlangue et conversation exolingue” [Interlanguage and exolingual conversation].” Cahiers du Departement des Langues et des Sciences du Langage 1. Lausanne: Université de Lausanne. Auer, P. 1984. Bilingual Conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Auer, P. 1998. “Introduction: Bilingual Conversation Revisited.” In Code-switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity, edited by P. Auer, 1-24. New York: Routledge. Bange, P. 1992. “À propos de la Communication et de l’Apprentissage de L2 [On L2 Communication and Learning].” AILE 1: 53 – 85. 17 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism on 09 December 2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947 Barwell, R. 2003. “Patterns of Attention in the Interaction of a Primary School Mathematics Student with English as an Additional Language.” Educational Studies in Mathematics 53: 35–59. Barwell, R. 2005. “Integrating Language and Content: Issues from the Mathematics Classroom.” Linguistics and Education 16: 205-218. Becker, A. 1995. Beyond Translation: Essays towards a Modern Philology. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Brouwer, C. E. 2003. “Word Searches in NNS–NS Interaction: Opportunities for Language Learning?” The Modern Language Journal 87 (4): 534 – 545. Brouwer, C. E. and J. Wagner. 2004. “Developmental Issues in Second Language Conversation.” Journal of Applied Linguistics 1 (1): 29-47. Cook, V. 1991. “The Poverty-of-the-Stimulus Argument and Multi-Competence.” Second Language Research, 7(2), 103-117. Cook, V. 2007. “The nature of the L2 user.” EUROSLA Yearbook 7: 205-220. Coulter, J. 1991. “Cognition: Cognition in Ethnomethodological Mode.” In Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences, edited by C. Button, 176-196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Pietro, J.-F., M. Matthey, and B. Py. 1989. “Acquisition et Contrat Didactique: les Séquences Potentiellement Acquisitionnelles de la Conversation Exolingue [Acquisition and Didactic Contract: Potential Acquisition Sequences in Exolingual Conversation].” In Actes du Troisième Colloque Régional de Linguistique [Proceedings of the third regional linguistics colloquim], edited by D. Weil, and H. Fugier, 99-124. Strasbourg: Université des Sciences Humaines et Université Louis Pasteur. Duff, P. 2007. “Second Language Socialization as Sociocultural Theory: Insights and Issues.” Language Teaching 40: 309-319. Duff, P., and M. Kobayashi. 2010. “The Intersection of Social, Cognitive, and Cultural Processes in Language Learning: a Second Language Socialization Approach.” In Sociocognitive Perspectives on Language Use and Language Learning, edited by R. Batstone, 75-93. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Duverger, J. 2007. “Didactiser l’Alternance des Langues en Cours de DNL [Didactisising Language Alternation in Non-Language Discipline courses].” Tréma 28. http://trema.revues.org/302. Evnitskaya, N., and T. Morton. 2011. “Knowledge Construction, Meaning-Making and Interaction in CLIL Science Classroom Communities of Practice.” Language and Education 25(2): 109-127. Firth, A., and J. Wagner. 1997. “On Discourse, Communication and (Some) Fundamental Concepts in SLA Research.” The Modern Language Journal 81 (3): 285-300. Firth, A., and J. Wagner. 2007. “Second/Foreign Language Learning as a Social Accomplishment: Elaborations on a Reconceptualized SLA.” The Modern Language Journal 91(Focus Issue): 800–819. Gajo, L. 2007. “Linguistic Knowledge and Subject Knowledge: How does Bilingualism Contribute to Subject Development?” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10 (5): 563–581. Gajo, L., and A.-C. Berthoud. 2008. “Construction Intégrée des Savoirs Linguistiques et Disciplinaires dans l'Enseignement Bilingue au Secondaire et au Tertiaire. 18 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism on 09 December 2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947 Rapport Final [Integrated Construction of Linguistic and Disciplinary Knowledge in Bilingual Secondary and Tertiary Education. Final report].” Fonds national suisse de la recherche scientifique: PNR 56. Gajo, L., and A. Grobet. 2008. “Interagir en Langue Étrangère dans le Cadre de Disciplines Scolaires: Intégration et Saturation des Savoirs Disciplinaires et Linguistiques dans l’élaboration des Definitions [Interacting in a Foreign Language in the Framework of School Disciplines: Integration and Saturation of Disciplinary and Linguistic Knowledge in the Elaboration of Definitions].” In Processus Interactionnels et Situations Éducatives [Interactional Processes and Educational Situations], edited by L. Filliettaz, and M.-L. Schubauer-Leoni, 113- 136. Brussels: De Boeck. García, O. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. García, O., L. Bartlett, and J. Kleifgen. 2007. “From Bilingualism to Plurilingualism.” In Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication, Vol. 5, edited by P. Auer and Li Wei, 207-228. Berlin: De Gruyter. García, O., and C. Sylvan. 2011. “Pedagogies and Practices in Multilingual Classrooms: Singularities in Pluralities.” The Modern Language Journal 95 (3): 385-400. Hall, J. K., A. Cheng, and M. T. Carlson. 2006. “Reconceptualising Multicompetence as a Theory of Language Knowledge.” Applied Linguistics 27 (2): 220-240. Kasper, G. 2008. “Discourse and Socially Shared Cognition.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Volume 6, edited by J. Cenoz, and N. H. Hornberger, 59-78. New York: Springer. Krafft, U., and U. Dausendschön-Gay. 1994. “Analyse Conversationnelle et Recherche sure l’Acquisition [Conversation Analysis and Research on Acquisition].” Bulletin VALS/ALSA 59: 127-158. Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Liebscher, G., and J. Dailey-O'Cain. 2005. Learner Code-Switching in the Content-Based Foreign Language Classroom. The Modern Language Journal 89 (2): 234 – 247. Lüdi, G., and B. Py. 2003. “Etre Bilingue [Being Bilingual].” Bern: Peter Lang. Lüdi, G., and B. Py. 2009. “To Be or not to Be … a Plurilingual Speaker.” International Journal of Multilingualism 6 (2): 154-167. Markee, N. 2008. “Toward a Learning Behavior Tracking Methodology for CA-for- SLA.” Applied Linguistics 29 (3): 404-427. Masats, D., L. Nussbaum, and V. Unamuno. 2007. “When Activity Shapes the Repertoire of Second Language Learners.” EUROSLA Yearbook 7: 121-147. Moore, E. 2011. “Plurilingual Interaction at a Catalan University Doing Internationalisation: Context and Learning.” PhD diss., Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. https://www.educacion.gob.es/teseo/mostrarRef.do?ref=941613. Moore, E., E. Borràs, and L. Nussbaum. 2013. “Plurilingual Resources in Lingua Franca Talk: An Interactionist Perspective.” In Language Alternation, Language Choice and Language Encounter in International Tertiary Education, edited by H. Haberland, D. Lønsmann, and B. Preisler, 53 – 84. Dordrecht: Springer. 19 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism on 09 December 2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947 Moore, E., L. Nussbaum, and E. Borràs. 2013. “Plurilingual Teaching and Learning Practices in ‘Internationalised’ University Lectures.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 16 (4): 471 – 493. Mondada, L., and S. Pekarek Doehler. 2000. “Interaction Sociale et Cognition Située: Quels Modèles pour la Recherche sur l'Acquisition des Langues [Social Interaction and Situated Cognition: Some Models for Research on Language Acquisition].” AILE 12: 81-102. Mondada, L., and S. Pekarek Doehler. 2004. “Second Language Acquisition as Situated Practice: Task Accomplishment in the French Second Language Classroom.” Modern Language Journal 88 (4): 501-518. Mori, J. 2007. “Exploring the Intersection of Second Language Acquisition, Conversation Analysis, and Foreign Language Pedagogy.” Modern Language Journal, 91(5), 847–860. Mori, J., and M. Hayashi. 2006. “The Achievement of Intersubjectivity through Embodied Completions: a Study of Interactions between First and Second Language Speakers.” Applied Linguistics 27 (2): 195–219. Moschkovich, J. 2002. “A Situated and Sociocultural Perspective on Bilingual Mathematics Learners.” Mathematical Thinking and Learning 4 (2 and 3): 189– 212. Nussbaum, L., and V. Unamuno. 2000. “Fluidité et Complexité dans la Construction du Discours entre Apprenants de Langues Étrangères [Fluency and Complexity in the Construction of Discourse between Learners of Foreign Languages].” Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Etrangère 12: 27-49. Nussbaum, L., and V. Unamuno. 2006. “La Compétence Sociolinguistique, pour Quoi Faire? [Sociolinguistic Competence, for Doing What?].” Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Apliquée 84: 47-65. Olsher, D. 2004. “Talk and Gesture: the Embodied Completion of Sequential Actions in Spoken Discourse.” In Second Language Conversations, edited by R. Gardner, and J. Wagner, 221 – 245. London: Continuum. Patton, W. A., and P. Creed. 2007. “The Relationship Between Career Variables and Occupational Aspirations/Expectations for Australian High School Adolescents.” Journal of Career Development 34 (2): 127-148. Pekarek Doehler, S. 2009. “Mediation Revisited: the Interactive Organization of Mediation in Learning Environments.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 9 (1): 22 – 42. Py, B. 1986. “Making Sense: Interlanguage's Intertalk in Exolingual Conversation.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 8 (3): 343-353. Py, B. 2007. “Apprendre une Langue et Devenir Bilingue: un Eclairage Acquisitionniste sur les Contacts de Langues [Learning a Language and Becoming Bilingual: an Aquisitional Illumination on Language Contact].” Journal of Language Contact THEMA 1: 93 – 100. Schegloff, E. A, G. Jefferson, and H. Sacks. 1977. “The Preference for Self-correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53: 361 – 382. Smit, U. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca in Higher Education: a Longitudinal Study of Classroom Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 20 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism on 09 December 2013, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13670050.2013.860947 Ustunel, E., and P. Seedhouse. 2005. “Why That, in That Language, Right Now? Code- Switching and Pedagogical Focus.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15(3): 302-325. Vygotsky, L. 1934/1986. Thought and Language. Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press, New York. Wood, D., J. Bruner, and G. Ross. 1976. “The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving.” Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry 17: 89-102. Young, R. F., and E. R. Young. 2004. Learning as Changing Participation: Discourse Roles in ESL Writing Conferences. The Modern Language Journal 88 (4): 519- 535. Figure captions Figure 1: Group members Figure 2: Multimodal resources (Fragment 2, line 25) Figure 3: Multimodal resources (Fragment 2, line 38) Figure 4: Multimodal resources (Fragment 2, line 41) Figure 5: Multimodal resources (Fragment 3, line 10) Figure 6: Gisela’s notes on her copy of the article Figure 7: Gisela’s notes during the presentation Figure 8: Process of plurilingual knowledge construction in completing task 21