Download - Japanese EFL learners’ negotiated interaction during convergent and divergent tasks in SCMC
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 1
Japanese EFL learners’ negotiated interaction during
convergent and divergent tasks in SCMC
Daniel O. Jackson
J.F. Oberlin University, Tokyo
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 4
Overview
• Introduction– Task-based synchronous CMC– Background to the study
• Method– Participants– Procedures– Tasks in the study
• Results• Discussion
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 5
Tasks in synchronous CMC
• Learners can negotiate for meaning, achieve mutual comprehension, and modify production (Pellettieri, 2000)
• Task type affects negotiation: jigsaw > information gap and decision-making (Blake, 2000)
• Seeding may increase negotiation: decision-making > jigsaw (Smith, 2003)
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 7
Negotiated interaction
S1: if you have a job you don’t like, you might quit and no enthusiam to work
S1: it is no fun in your life.
S2: What does enthusiam mean?
S1: this means you have no interesting for working
S2: I see, thank you.
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 8
Tasks in synchronous CMC
• Degree of task structure influences communication in CMC -- less teacher-directed task structures encourage metalanguage (Lamy, 2007)
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 9
Background to the study
• Integrate CMC tasks in an EAP course for English majors at a private university in Japan
• Adopt pedagogic task types
• Employ a classroom research strategy that builds on existing findings
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 10
Purpose
• Compare EFL learners’ interaction during convergent and divergent tasks in synchronous CMC
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 11
Goal orientation (adapted from Duff, 1986, p. 150)
Convergent task
Problem
Shared goalS1 S2
Split goalS1 S2
Issue, opinion, debate
Divergent task
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 12
Summary of Duff (1986)
• Words Con. = Div.
• Turns Con. > Div.
• Words/Turn Div. > Con.
• S-nodes/C-unit Div. > Con.
• Questions– Confirmation checks Con. > Div.– Referential questions Con. > Div.
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 13
Participants
• Female English majors taking EAP
• 2nd year
• L1 Japanese
• Most reported having used chat
• All had taken a computer lit course
• 19 students (both tasks)
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 14
Procedures
• CMC tasks in weeks 5, 8 & 11• T explained the tasks to the class• Ss read instructions and logged into Moodle• Chat module/grouping were used• Ss typed messages for 20 mins./task• Chat logs saved by T• Survey carried out in week 11
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 18
Measures
• Words, turns, words per turn
• Referential Qs, comprehension checks, clarification requests, and confirmation checks (inter-rater reliability was 92%)
• Clauses per C-unit (following Chaudron, 1988; Crookes, 1990; Foster, 1998; Robinson, 2001; Djapoura, 2005)
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 19
Clauses per c-unit
S3: Yes, you may feel happy if you do a job you love, but, after that, having a lot of money can be more happier…
S4: Actually, I agree with your opinion!!
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 20
Summary of results
• Participants typed 18% more words in the divergent task (1352) than in the convergent task (1142)
• The convergent task contained 36% more turns (225) than the divergent task (166)
• Average WPT was 9.61 in the divergent task (SD=4.28) and 6.08 in the convergent task (SD=2.58)
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 21
Summary of results
• Participants typed 18% more words in the divergent task (1352) than in the convergent task (1142)
• The convergent task contained 36% more turns (225) than the divergent task (166)
• Average WPT was 9.61 in the divergent task (SD=4.28) and 6.08 in the convergent task (SD=2.58)
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 22
Summary of results
• There were more than 3 times the number of referential questions in the convergent task (51) than in the divergent task (14)
• Amount of negotiation for meaning was similar (and low) across both tasks
• The average CPC was 1.39 in the convergent task (SD=.37) and 1.78 in the divergent task (SD=.27)
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 23
Summary of results
• There were more than 3 times the number of referential questions in the convergent task (51) than in the divergent task (14)
• Amount of negotiation for meaning was similar (and low) across both tasks
• The average CPC was 1.39 in the convergent task (SD=.37) and 1.78 in the divergent task (SD=.27)
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 24
The individual dimension:Responses to F2F and CMC
4.7 4.74.4
6.97.3
4.34.6
5
6.4 6.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Difficulty Stress Abililty Interest Motivation
Face-to-face Chat
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 25
The individual dimension:Participants’ written comments
• “There were times when replies in the chats came late”
• “In chat I couldn’t write the things I wanted to write…I want to become able to do it properly”
• “Chats took time to reply to and I’m not a skilled typist, but it was fun”
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 26
Limitations
• Grouping– Not all participated in both tasks
• Measurement– Tasks not counterbalanced– 5-week interval between tasks– Survey timing
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 27
Discussion
• Different effects on production in CMC
• Low frequency of modified interaction
• Ability, motivation, interest ratings may vary