1

LEARNING ACTIVITIES 2-Example to submit the assignment

Dear student of Methodology in EFL Research, this is an example of how to develop the literature review and how to write it in terms of a theoretical framework. The literature review initiates with the synthesis of the references you selected to support your research. You should revise the explanations provided in the learning activities 3 of our virtual room.

PART 1. Write the citation of the references you select and summarize or synthesize the information in regards to your research project. For example:

Reference: Marsh, D. (2012). Blended learning. Creating learning opportunities for language learners. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Marsh (2012) asserts that blended learning assumes the continued use of face-to-face teaching as a basic building block of the learning experienced, enriched and enhanced by the integration of the internet and other teaching and learning technologies into studies undertaken both in and out of the classroom. These arguments explain how this theoretical background constituted the basis to design and implement a pedagogical frame, which implied the creation of a new context for language learning in both scenarios, the physical classroom and the virtual environment displayed at Edmodo.com for studying language interaction.

ü It is necessary to submit minimum three summaries of references to evidence the development of literature review. The references and citations could be taken from books or research articles collected from the journals pointed out through the learning activities 3.

ü After completing the literature review, you should organize the text to describe the theoretical framework.

ü REMEMBER: The literature review is a collection of summaries based on the selection of references. The theoretical framework is a description that connects the references and citations you selected to write with your own words and some citations how theory supports your research idea.

Thetheoreticalframeworkinitiateswiththeliteraturereview.After selecting the references, it is necessary to write asynthesispereachreferenceasyouseeitintheexample.

Thesynthesisofthereferenceinitiates with the citation byfollowingAPAstyle.

After the citation, the synthesis defines theconceptualization and then such summaryestablishes a relationshipwith the researchproject. It is not just copying informationfromtheauthor.

2

ü The following text is an original theoretical support. It is a support of a research article, whose reference is: Benavides, D.M., and Rodríguez, S.M., (2015). Language interaction through task and blended learning instruction in an English as a foreign language group of sixth graders at the Jose Manuel Marroquín School, Bogotá-Colombia.

ü Notice how the researcher includes citations and constructs arguments to support the research statement. The voice of the researcher is explicit. This research involves a pedagogical intervention or instructional design. The theoretical framework includes such component.

ü Attheendofthetheoreticalframework,youshouldincludethelistofreferences.ü Yourtheoreticalframework(apartfromtheliteraturereview)shouldincludeminimum3,

maximum4pages,doublespace,fontstyle,timesnewroman12orArial12.ü Ifyouhaveanyquestion,pleasecontactme:sandramilenarodriguez@ustadistancia.edu.co

Theoretical framework

Since the research project aims at analyzing language interaction through content-based instruction

when exposing learners to a blended learning environment in an EFL group of sixth graders at the

Jose Manuel Marroquín School in Bogotá, the theoretical framework embraces dimensions

corresponding to: language interaction, blended learning, content-based instruction for teaching

and learning, and virtual environments.

As interaction implies a collaborative exchange, this process entails an active and

productive communication between different speakers, which results in a social interaction that,

according to Duensing, Stickler, Batstone and Heins (2006), is beneficial to language learners:

“For language learning to take place there also has to be interaction as a social activity, it is to say,

a social reciprocal action involving two or more people”. Therefore, interaction is not only a

collaborative exchange but it is a social action, natural on human beings.

3

Likewise, Pica (1994) highlights three main dimensions embracing language interaction: a

social, a linguistic and a cognitive dimension. According to the author these dimensions underpin

or imply features related to negotiation of meaning, comprehensible input and comprehensible

output. From this relation between dimensions and features, Pica frames three types of interaction:

learner-learner-interaction, learner-content-interaction and learner-teacher interaction.

Such types of interaction can be explained under the principles of language interaction and

the features aforementioned. Pica (1994) states that negotiation of meaning describes how learners

negotiate with meaning while working linguistically to achieve the needed comprehensibility,

visible when repeating a message, adjusting its syntax, changing its words, or modifying a

message, its form and its meaning in a varied of ways. In terms of Yufrizal (2009), negotiation of

meaning involves a series of activities conducted by an addressor and an addressee to make they

understand and be understood by their interlocutors.

One of the characteristics in negotiation of meaning has to do with comprehensible input. Pica (n.

d.) establishes two main conditions for defining comprehensible input, as it is not possible for

learners to master a foreign language before exposing them to a variety of resources in the target

language. The first condition refers to “the availability of samples of the target input modified a

priori toward greater semantic redundancy and transparency and less complex syntax” (Pica,

1996). It means that within a pedagogical framework, a learner could be exposed into the

simplification of spoken and written materials for language learning.

The second condition has to do with the opportunity for EFL learners to interact with the

teacher, the content and among themselves. As students interact, negotiation of meaning emerges

“to repair breakdowns in communication or ensure mutual comprehension of meaning”; it explains

4

why in this process of negotiation of meaning evidences of clarification requests, confirmations

checks and comprehension checks, also called signals by Pica (1994), become evident. The

occurrence of such signals corresponds to the construct of modified interaction or interactional

modification, as Pica determines it. But it is not only the comprehensible input that contributes to

negotiation of meaning.

Comprehensible output is also important. Output has to do with language production. It

provides learners the opportunity for meaningful practice of their linguistic resources enabling the

development of automaticity in their use. In this use of the target language, fluency is predominant

rather than accuracy, and it corresponds to students’ intuitions that they gain in fluency by using

the language as frequently as possible.

When a teacher gives students the opportunity to speak in class, the output gains an

important role in the interactive process. According to Swain (1995), it may be that producing

language forces learners to recognize what they do not know or know only partially. Additionally,

the author states that learner production (output) is also modified as well as input is. These learners’

modifications of output are a vehicle for them to attend to their interlanguage grammar and thereby

manipulate it in creative, complex and more target-like ways.

Collaboration is another feature that shapes the concept of language interaction. Donato

(2004) identified the important role that collaboration has on interaction. In such a way,

collaboration is reflected in the construction of new knowledge and growth for the group in the

context where social interaction takes place, that is, in the learning environment. The feature of

collaboration involves the three types of interaction: learner-learner, learner-content, and

learner-teacher interactions.

5

Moore and Kearsley (1996) and Thouësny (2013) find the value of learner-learner

interaction in the areas of application and evaluation of tasks that seeks to foment interaction and

collaborative work among learners, as the learner share information with their peers and receive

feedback. On the other hand, learner-content interaction has become essential for the educational

process since by interacting with the subject matter the overall understanding of the learner

changes and the personal construction of knowledge is enabled. Finally, learner-teacher

interaction is widely considered as essential by educators and students alike.

Based on the inclusion of a virtual scenario to observe and study language interaction in

this research project, it becomes meaningful to explain a fourth type of interaction, learner-

interface interaction, proposed by Hillman, Willis and Gunawardena (1994). This type of

interaction emerged from the types identified by Moore and Kearsley (1996). It describes the

interaction that occurs when a learner use technologies to communicate with the content, negotiate

meaning and validate knowledge with the teacher and peers.

The next conceptualization has to do with the presentation of blended learning and the link

with language interaction regarding the aim of this research. Blended learning is a type of e-

learning that combines instructional modalities, methods or what we know as face-to-face

instruction with online instruction or virtual environments’ exposure, according to Bonk and

Graham (2005).

The authors state that blended learning provides pedagogical richness, access to knowledge

and social interaction. From the research context, this blended learning definition involves

interaction in both the language classroom and in a virtual environment. Such environments offer

the opportunity to create a social learning environment characterized by participation and

6

interaction for both students and teachers. In such a way, interaction leads to a collaborative work

among learners (Brindley & Walti, 2009).

In the same way, Marsh (2012) asserts that blended learning assumes the continued use of

face-to-face teaching as a basic building block of the learning experienced, enriched and enhanced

by the integration of the internet and other teaching and learning technologies into studies

undertaken both in and out of the classroom. These arguments explain how this theoretical

background constituted the basis to design and implement a pedagogical frame, which implied the

creation of a new context for language learning in both scenarios, the physical classroom and the

virtual environment displayed at Edmodo.com for studying language interaction.

Pedagogical frame

This research involved the design and implementation of a pedagogical frame through content-

based instruction in order to create a blended language learning environment to connect a physical

classroom and a virtual space to analyze language interaction. From that, it is precise to explain

how such pedagogical construction supports and describes the research process.

The first pedagogical definition to consider is content-based instruction, which describes

language learning through content across a didactic unit. In the context of this research project,

language content attempted to provide multiple opportunities for language input, to understand

and use the target language. Thus, content-based instruction fosters the integration of language

and content, viewing language as a medium for learning content and content as a resource for

learning and improving language (Stoller, 2002).

7

Language interaction promoted through content able to catch the attention of participants’

—their interests and experiences— took into consideration the types of tasks proposed by Pica,

Kanagy and Falodun (1993), and Yufrizal (2009) in order to enhance language interaction in a

group of learners. Such tasks correspond to: information gap tasks, jigsaw tasks, decision making

tasks, problem solving tasks, opinion exchange or role play tasks.

References

Kohn, T. (2007). Blended learning: A definition. In V. Schellens & De Wever (Eds.), Integrating ICT in blended learning environments. Retrieved from http://www.testing.ugent.be/material/tammy.pdfhttp://www.testing.ugent.be/material/tammy.pdf

Lee, L. (2002). Enhancing learners’ communication skills through synchronous electronic interaction and task-based instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 35(1), rango de páginas del artículo.

McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. New York: Cambridge University press.

Marsh, D. (2012). Blended learning. Creating learning opportunities for language learners. New York: Cambridge University Press.