1 / 29

International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching University of Leuven Leuven, Belgium September 21-23, 2005

5/2/2012. 2. Modified Output during Task-based Pair Interaction and Group Interaction . Ali Shehadeh (PhD)Aleppo University, SyriaKing Saud University, Saudi ArabiaCollege of Languages and TranslationKing Saud UniversityPO Box 87907Riyadh 11652Saudi Arabiae-mail: ashhada@ksu.edu.sa. 5/2/20

aquene
Download Presentation

International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching University of Leuven Leuven, Belgium September 21-23, 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. 5/3/2012 1 International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching University of Leuven Leuven, Belgium September 21-23, 2005

    2. 5/3/2012 2 Modified Output during Task-based Pair Interaction and Group Interaction Ali Shehadeh (PhD) Aleppo University, Syria King Saud University, Saudi Arabia College of Languages and Translation King Saud University PO Box 87907 Riyadh 11652 Saudi Arabia e-mail: ashhada@ksu.edu.sa

    3. 5/3/2012 3 1. Current view of roles of output Not only: -it is the product of acquisition that has already taken place, -it enhances fluency in the TL, -it provides feedback and generates more comprehensible input,

    4. 5/3/2012 4 Current view of roles of output (cont’d) But also: it plays an important role in the acquisition process. According to Swain’s Comprehensible Output Hypothesis (1995, 2000), output plays 3 functions in SLA: -it promotes noticing, -it serves as a metalinguistic function for language learners (negotiating about target language form), and -it serves the L2 learning process through hypothesis testing (for a review, see Shehadeh, 2002).

    5. 5/3/2012 5 2. Output, noticing, modified output, and L2 learning output notice the gap in one’s IL: -internal noticing self-initiation -external noticing other-initiation modified output L2 learning

    6. 5/3/2012 6 3. Contexts examined 1. Dyadic interaction (NS-NNS and NNS-NNS). 2. Learner-individual tasks (e.g., think-aloud protocols).

    7. 5/3/2012 7 4. Purpose Group interaction (3 learners or more): ? -is common interaction-type in many EFL/ESL classrooms. -is central in task-based approaches to language learning and language instruction (e.g., Edwards & Willis, 2005; Ellis, 2003; McDonough, 2004; Skehan, 2003). -Collect data from NNS participants only in both interaction patterns which is a more common situation in the world’s classrooms.

    8. 5/3/2012 8 5. Significance 1. Theoretical implications: We do not know if something very different happens in the group condition from the pair condition in terms of processing and negotiation. E.g., we do not know whether group interaction provides quantitatively fewer opportunities than pair interaction, but the take-up of those opportunities -or the number of MO instances resulting from other- or self-initiation in relation to the number of opportunities arising- would be higher than in pair interaction. Examining the effect of group, as against dyad, interaction on opportunities for MO is therefore important to further substantiate the theoretical claims underlying Swain’s output hypothesis.

    9. 5/3/2012 9 Significance (cont’d) 2. Pedagogical implications (consequence for language pedagogy): This might enable us to have a principled basis for the usefulness of task-based group work and pair work in the second/foreign language classroom.

    10. 5/3/2012 10 6. The study Participants: 32 NNSs of English, 17 males and 15 females. 13 different L1 backgrounds. intermediate level. Communication Task (decision-making): two-way task equal opportunities for talk and for supplying and requesting information a + convergent task: participants have shared goals, must reach unanimous decisions; thus task ‘forces’ participants in their output.

    11. 5/3/2012 11 Communication Task STATE OF FREEDONIA Meeting of the Grand Revolutionary Council YOU are the members of the GRAND REVOLUTIONARY COUNCIL OF FREEDONIA, which has just won its independence after a revolutionary struggle with its colonial masters. You have met here today to draw up part of the CONSTITUTION OF FREEDONIA.

    12. 5/3/2012 12 Communication Task (Cont’d) You must decide which propositions to accept, which to reject, and which you wish to amend. Your final decisions must be unanimous. Remember that the future and fate of FREEDONIA is in you hands. It has already been agreed that one of the members of the council (i.e., one of you) will be chosen PRESIDENT of FREEDONIA. You have to decide on the following questions: 1. Who will be elected a President. 2. The President will be elected for life or for a period of seven years.

    13. 5/3/2012 13 Communication Task (Cont’d) 3. Following the first Presidency, all other Presidents will be elected (a) by the GRAND COUNCIL or (b) directly by the people or (c) by a parliament of Freedonia. 4. The decisions of the President will be supreme or The decisions of the Grand Council and the President will be supreme or The decisions of the Freedonian parliament will be supreme.

    14. 5/3/2012 14 Communication Task (Cont’d) 5. All persons who supported the colonial administration of the enemies of Freedonia will be (a) executed or (b) exiled until be pardoned by the President or (c) given a general and immediate amnesty. 6. FREEDONIA will remain forever neutral in military and political affairs, and will join no alliances.

    15. 5/3/2012 15 7. A model for self- and other-initiated modified output

    16. 5/3/2012 16 Operational definitions A trouble-source or trigger: any linguistic problem (phonological, morphosyntactic, or lexical) the learner runs into during his/her output or performance in the L2, leading to other- or self-initiations. Other-initiations: cases in which interlocutors request clarification, make an explicit statement of non-understanding, or request explanation, expansion, paraphrase or elaboration. Self-initiations: cases in which NNSs self-initiate an attempt to clarify an utterance when they notice that their utterance or part of it was not understood or misunderstood by interlocutor(s), or that the utterance is/was ill-formed in some way. 

    17. 5/3/2012 17 Operational definitions (cont’d) The outcome (the response that can result from other- or self-initiation): this can take different forms, including ignoring the signal to repair, failing to repair, expressing difficulty in repairing or communicating the intended meaning, appealing for help, inserting new but not directly relevant information, switching the topic, or successfully reprocessing and modifying output toward comprehensibility or accuracy (i.e., producing MO). The reaction to the outcome: this is an optional unit of the routine which helps tie up the routine in some way before the speakers return to the main flow of conversation.

    18. 5/3/2012 18 Illustrating Examples Sequence 1 (other-initiated modified output): Example 1 illustrates a routine for the negotiation of an information unit between two NNSs leading to MO: José: I sink the grand council is menority (trigger or trouble-source) Karen: menority? (indicator: other-initiation) José: minority minority in in the parliament (response: outcome) Karen: yes, yes (reaction to the outcome)

    19. 5/3/2012 19 Sequence 2 (self-initiated modified output): Examples 2 illustrates an instance of IL modification or self-initiation leading to MO by a NNS: Student 3: the president must elect emm emm must be elect must be elected by by the people of Freedonia…

    20. 5/3/2012 20 8. Hypotheses i. Quantity of MO: Hypothesis 1: Pair interaction would provide NNSs with more opportunities for MO resulting from other-initiations than group interaction. Hypothesis 2: Pair interaction would provide NNSs with more opportunities for MO resulting from self-initiations than group interaction.

    21. 5/3/2012 21 ii. Quality of MO: Hypothesis 3: The take-up of opportunities for MO would be higher in group interaction than pair interaction relative to the number of other-initiations arising in each situation. Hypothesis 4: The take-up of opportunities for MO would be higher in group interaction than pair interaction relative to the number of self-initiations arising in each situation.

    22. 5/3/2012 22 9. Results i. Quantity of MO: H1: Other-initiated modified output: Confirmed. There were 42 occurrences (or 67%) of all 63 other-initiated MOs in pair interactions and 21 occurrences (or 33%) in group interactions. Differences between the two frequencies revealed a level of significance in favour of pair interactions. H2: Self-initiated modified output: Confirmed. There were 164 occurrences (or 57%) of all 288 self-initiated MOs in pair interactions and 124 occurrences (or 43%) in group interactions. Differences between the two frequencies revealed a level of significance in favour of pair interactions too.

    23. 5/3/2012 23 ii. Quality of MO: H3: Other-initiated modified output: Disconfirmed. 79% (or 42 of the 53 cases) of all other-initiations in the pair condition resulted in MO, and 84% (or 21 of the 25 cases) of all other-initiations in the group condition resulted in MO. Difference between the two proportions revealed a slight but not significant difference between both interaction patterns. H4: Self-initiated modified output: Confirmed. 89% (or 164 of the 184 cases) of all self-initiations in the pair condition resulted in MO, and 96% (or 124 of the 129 cases) of all self-initiations in the group condition resulted in MO. Difference between the two proportions revealed significant differences between both interaction patterns in favour of the group condition.

    24. 5/3/2012 24 10. Discussion and implications i. Theory (two implications): First: In light of Swain’s (1998, 2000) and Swain and Lapkin’s (1995) arguments that when NNSs reprocess and modify their output toward greater message comprehensibility or accuracy, they are engaged in some mental processes that affect their access to the knowledge base, and that this process is part of L2 learning, the findings obtained here imply that both task-based pair interaction and group interaction promote MO and L2 learning, but they do so in different ways: the former by providing NNSs with quantitatively more opportunities for MO; the latter by providing them with a greater take-up of those opportunities in relation to the number of opportunities arising from self-initiations.

    25. 5/3/2012 25 i. Theory: (cont’d) Second, in view of: (a) the importance of noticing the gap in one’s IL and role of MO in L2 learning (e.g., Swain, 1995, 2000; Swain & Lapkin, 1995; Shehadeh, 1999, 2001), (b) the predominance of self-initiated self-completed repair in NS-NS interaction: more favoured and more prevalent in conversations (Schegloff, 1979; Schegloff et al., 1977),

    26. 5/3/2012 26 i. Theory: (cont’d) (c) the argument that self-initiated self-completed repairs as internal attention-drawing devices are more facilitative of L2 learning than other-initiated repairs as external attention-drawing techniques (Izumi, 2000, 2002), we can conclude that group interaction provides learners with a good opportunity to notice the gap in their IL, produce MO, and learn an L2.

    27. 5/3/2012 27 ii. Language pedagogy (two implications): First: Task-based group interaction should be encouraged as a standard learning/teaching strategy in the L2 classroom because it provides learners with a major opportunity to develop the ability to do self-initiated self-completed repair, and this, in turn, is BOTH more representative of targetlike behaviour AND facilitative of language learning.

    28. 5/3/2012 28 Language pedagogy: (cont’d) Second: Self-initiated self-completed repairs should be encouraged in the L2 classroom. This is very important when we know that some classroom studies have observed that students are not given sufficient time or opportunity to self-correct in a classroom situation (e.g., McHoul 1990).

    29. 5/3/2012 29 Language pedagogy: (cont’d) McHoul (1990: 375) observed that teachers initiated corrections “either (a) immediately a trouble-source is over, with usually no gap occurring or (b) immediately the repairable [i.e., the trouble-source] itself is spoken/heard.” He goes on to say that “The latter cases of other-initiations either (i) overlap the trouble-source turn or (ii) interrupt it. In instances of (i), teacher and student can both be heard to be speaking, but very briefly, at the same time. In instances of (ii), the student immediately yields the floor to the teacher” (p. 375).

    30. 5/3/2012 30 Thank You

More Related