Promoting Learners Language Production through ComputerMediated Interactive Tasks

Promoting Learners’ Language Production through Computer-Mediated Interactive Tasks Ali Hussain Al-Bulushi Lancaster University Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 1

Content 1. Learner-learner interaction 2. The role of TBLT in interaction 3. Interactive tasks in CMC 4. Research 5. Data Analysis 6. Some initial findings 7. Conclusion Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 2

Learner-Learner Interaction v. The Interaction Hypothesis postulates that a crucial ground for language development is when L 2 learners are engaged in negotiating meaning and resolving communication breakdowns while interacting among each other (Long & Robinson, 1998: 22). Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 3

Learner-Learner Interaction cont. v. The notion of negotiation of meaning while interacting around a language learning task has been investigated extensively in relation to various areas. Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 4

The Role of TBLT in Interaction v In a classroom setting, research has shown that welldesigned and implemented tasks can engage learners in meaningful interaction and that negotiation can occur through these interactions (see Pica, 1994). v Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (1993) established four main categories of task features. interactant relationship, interactional goal, communication goal, and outcome option. Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 5

The Role of TBLT in Interaction cont. Task Type Interactant Relationship Interactional Goal Communication Goal Outcome Option Jigsaw Both participants possess, request, and supply information Required Convergent One Information Gap Either participant possesses, requests, and supplies information. Required Convergent One Problem. Solving Participants posses information, but may or may not request or supply it. Optional Convergent One Decision. Making Participants posses information, but may or may not request or supply it. Optional Convergent More than one Opinion. Exchange Participants posses information, but may or may not request or supply it. Optional Not convergent More or less than one (Table 1: Communication task types for L 2 research and pedagogy analysis, Adapted from Pica et al. 1993: 17) Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 6

The Role of TBLT in Interaction cont. v. According to the four characteristics, jigsaw tasks are the most conducive to the negotiation of meaning whereas opinion-exchange tasks are the least conducive to negotiation of meaning. Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 7

Interactive Tasks in CMC v. CMC is basically a type of CALL environments that refers to a situation in which L 2 learners use the computer to pedagogically communicate via emails, bulletin boards, chat lines, and within MOO (Multi-user domains, Object Oriented) environments (Beatty, 2003). v. Why CMC Rapid increase in the use of CMC in education and EFL/ESL Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 8

Interactive Tasks in CMC cont. More equitable learner participation and better quality language than that found in face-to-face interaction (Smith, 2003) CMC interaction creates less threatening and less stressful environment Logging makes it easier to capture and assess the interaction for research and pedagogical purposes. CMC can promote TBLT/TBLL and interactionoriented approach to SLA. Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 9

Interactive Tasks in CMC cont. Conducting network-based discussions entails meaningful use of the TL and encourages teachers and learners to treat language as a medium of communication rather than an object. Other benefits mentioned by (Mydlarski, 1998) include: Learners contributions (amount, pace, time) § The interactivity of the writing and the learner-centred orientation of CMC enable the learners to take control of their interaction. Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 10

Interactive Tasks in CMC cont. § In asynchronous communication, learners can utilize the time to plan their messages and edit them before posting which would enhance their productive L 2 strategies and processes. § Exposure to a substantial amount of comprehensible input produced by peers of a similar level and shared background. Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 11

Interactive Tasks in CMC cont. v. The implementation of computer-based activities in the EFL classroom should be based on sound SLA theory that can facilitate language learning. v. Based on the principles of TBLT, using CMC synchronously or asynchronously appears to have potentials for language learning and teaching. Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 12

Research v Research Questions How do learners negotiate for meaning during task-based CMC? Does the task type affect how learners negotiate for meaning during CMC? If so, how? Do L 2 students believe that online interactive tasks actually benefit their language reception and production? Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 13

Research cont. v. Participants Students doing an intensive English language program in the language centre at SQU. First pilot (21 learners) but the second pilot (one dyad) v. Instruments Pre-treatment questionnaire Web. CT Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 14

Research cont. The Tasks First Pilot §Jigsaw (pictorial + narrative) §Information gap §Decision making §Contact §Problem solving §Opinion exchange Second Pilot §Jigsaw (pictorial) §Information gap §Decision making Semi-structured interviews Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 15

Research cont. v Procedures Participants randomly chosen and met at least once a week during their scheduled computer lab session. First session: they’ll do the pre-treatment questionnaire They will do 2 warming-up activities namely chatting with each other about their plans for the rest of the day and doing an example task from each task type chosen for the main treatment. Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 16

Research cont. Each student will be allocated a partner to do the online tasks After each session, all the chat scripts will be compiled and saved Eventually interviews will be conducted Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 17

Data Analysis v. Varonis and Gass (1985) of Nf. M was used to identify the Nf. M incidents Trigger Indicator Response Reaction to the Response Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 18

Data Analysis cont. v. First pilot study Yielded only 9 incidents of Nf. M. This paucity can be attributed to: § Tasks’ language level may have not corresponded with the participants’ proficiency level. § The characteristics of the tasks lacked some linguistic challenges (lexical, structural, discoursal, or instructional) § The participants’ shared background helped them in anticipating discourse especially in the opinion-exchange task. § Same pairs lessened the collaboration towards Nf. M Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 19

Data Analysis cont. v. Second pilot study The discourse produced tends to follow pedagogic tasks format over the real-world format. Example: (Excerpt from the pen pal gift jigsaw task) Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 20

Data Analysis cont. Hind: jasmine , we must do step by step OK Hind: First you must write for me about George Hind; every thing you have about Geore, Please? Jasmine: ok but i think we need to now some difficult word Hind: I know that but first tell me what u have about Geore? OK Jasmine: ok as you like Hind: I will tell you what I have then you tell me Ok Jasmine: ok Hind: About George: Likes outdoor activities Loves music Wears suits at work Gave up smoking last month Diagnosed with asthma recently Jasmine: he lives in manchester he enjoys gardening he likes water sports this is some of what i have about him Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) Excerpt (1) Participants avoiding the task roles (Names are pseudonyms) 21

Some Initial Findings v Amount of Nf. M calculate negotiated turns and compare it to the total turns for the dyad across the 3 task types Task Type Nf. M Incidents Negotiated Turns Total Mean Percentage of Turns Negotiated Jigsaw 5 20 121 16. 5% Decision making 7 26 115 23% Information gap 2 5 60 8% Total 14 51 296 17% Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 22

Some Initial Findings cont. v. Findings run contrary to Pica et al. ’s (1993) and reveal that DMT helped the learners initiate 6% more negotiations than the jigsaw task. v. Triggers are basically the catalyst of interaction which spur the Nf. M incidents among learners. Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 23

Some Initial Findings cont. Type of triggers Description Jigsaw Lexical The problematic utterance can be clearly linked to a specific lexical item 3 Syntactic The problematic utterance can be clearly attributed to a structural or grammatical construction Discourse Related to the general coherence of the discourse or conversation Content Refer to the entire content of a previous message Taskspecific The utterance refers to a nonunderstanding of a task feature rather than language-oriented utterance. Total 1 4 DM IG Total % 2 5 38. 5% 4 5 38. 5% 3 3 23% 13 100% 7 2 Triggers initiated the Nf. M incidents and their percentages in the task types Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 24

Some Initial Findings cont. v Not all the Nf. M routines went through the same phases of the model. Hind: OK what you losed? Jasmine: first i want to know what is relatives mean Hind: It is mesn: like family members Hind: Jasmine I will tell you about what i have Exerpt (2) The task as a trigger rather than an explicit utterance Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 25

Some Initial Findings cont. Negotiation Sequence Number of routines terminating at this stage Percentages of routines terminating at this stage T I 0 0% T I R 0 0% T I R RR 8 57% I R 3 21. 5% I R RR 3 21. 5% Total 14 100% Note: T = Trigger, I = Indicator, R = Response, RR = Reaction to Response Stages of Negotiation Routines Completed by Dyads Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 26

Some Initial Findings cont. v 17% of the negotiated turns are Nf. M incidents v. Although IGT did initiate a couple of Nf. M incidents, the majority of them are found in the DMT and jigsaw task types. v. Task-dependency seems to help online interlocutors to produce more negotiated routines. pen pal gift jigsaw task Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 27

Conclusion v. Comparisons with other studies or generalizations should be warranted. v. More data is needed to make strong claims about the conduciveness of task types as well as the different possible phases of Nf. M in a CMC-based interaction. Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 28

Thur. 22/09/05 (15: 00) 29