japanese efl learners’ negotiated interaction during convergent and divergent tasks in scmc
DESCRIPTION
Japanese EFL learners’ negotiated interaction during convergent and divergent tasks in SCMC. Daniel O. Jackson J.F. Oberlin University, Tokyo. Overview. Introduction Task-based synchronous CMC Background to the study Method Participants Procedures Tasks in the study Results Discussion. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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 2
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 3
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 6
Negotiated interaction(From Varonis & Gass, 1985, p. 74)
T I > R > RR
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 15
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 16
June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 17
Tasks examined in the studyDecision-making - con. Opinion exchange - div.
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
