Non-proficient children using interactive tasks in pairs

1. Non-proficient children using interactive tasks in pairs TBLT Conference, Leuven, September 2005 Annamaria Pinter University of Warwick

2. Outline Background to the study General findings: children and adult subjects Socio-cultural framework for analysing task outcomes One case of a child pair interacting on the �Spot the differences� task Implications for task design and primary practice

3. Background 10 year old children in a state school in Hungary: after 2 years of English post beginner level (umbrella term �young learners�) EFL in primary schools in Hungary (teacher, textbook and methodology) Lack of spontaneous speaking and interactive practice Motivation for the study (child and adult data)

4. Brief description of the study Week 1: Researcher getting to know the children and introducing the 2 tasks (meaning focussed, closed tasks with specific in-built demands); Children practise with the first set of tasks in L1; Week 2: Children are invited to record their performances on both tasks, with the same partner 3 times in English using new versions of the same task type each time; Week 3: Children in the same pairs are invited to watch their first and last English performances on both tasks and comment on perceived changes. Several months later: adult data using the same task sets

5. General results: repetition (1) By the last L2 performances on both tasks all children became more fluent used more target like forms in English used less L1 paid more attention to each other monitored their performances better

6. General results: comparisons with adults (2) Adults in general were more aware of the demands of the tasks from the beginning co-operated more tightly, allowing for fewer gaps and ambiguities used more clarification, overlapping speech and shared utterances used systematic search strategies, tally keeping and checking of differences

7. Different approaches to task-based learning Psycholinguisitic Computer model of learning Large numbers Task performances are controllable Experimental, quantitative Socio-cultural Vygotskian model of learning Small numbers Task performances are not controllable Qualitative, micro-analysis

8. Socio-cultural framework for analysis Vygotsky�s ZPD: originally between child and adult but also between peers: Rogoff (1990) �moving in and out of the role of an expert; In language learning tasks: peers can construct new knowledge together: Donato (1994): students jointly constructed grammatical forms together; Kowal and Swain (1994): students reconstructed some notes together and decided collectively what language forms to use; Swain and Lapkin (1998): students worked out solutions to linguistic problems and they were able to retain these as measured by a post-test; Others: e.g. Coulson 2005, Muller 2005, Ohta 2000;

9. Peer interactions (1) Unique individual interpetations of tasks (Activity theory: Leont�ev 1981): learners come to tasks with their own personal histories and assumptions about both the task and the given context (studies: e.g. Ellis 1995, Coughlan and Duff 1994, Platt and Brooks 1994, Roebuck 2000, Brooks and Donato 1994, Appel and Lantolf 1994)

10. Peer interactions (2) Speakers need to build intersubjectivity (Rommetveit 1979): the capacity to adopt the perspective of different others, shared interpretation and understanding of the task at hand; (e.g. DiCamilla and Anton 1997) Learners can offer timely and effective assistance to each other (e.g. Ohta 1995 and 2001).

11. Peer-peer collaboration between children Different areas of the curriculum with mixed results Children�s ability to take others� needs into consideration grows with age and is related to their L1 development Tudge (1990): peer-peer collaboration is not automatically beneficial for children: Complex interaction between competence and confidence Degree of equality between partners Individual motivation to be involved in the task

12. Peer-peer collaboration between children Rely on adults to manage communication for them. Show weaknesses as both speakers and listeners When faced with ambiguity, even 10-11 year olds can be reluctant to clarify messages ( Cameron 2001, Patterson and Kister 1981)

13. Task repetition Repetition � special kind of rehearsal where the learners relate their repeated performance to information in the long term memory store (Bygate 2001). Real task repetition can lead to learners using more complex grammar, more appropriate vocabulary and better organisation of content ( Bygate 1996, Gass et al 1999, Bygate 2001, Nemeth and Kormos 2001, Lynch and Maclean 2000 and 2001, and Bygate and Samuda 2005), and better control of the task with less L1 and less overt self-regulation (Platt and Brooks 1994, Brooks et al 1997.

14. Case of a pair (Peter and Adam) How did the children change their performances as a result of having the opportunity to practise with the tasks? Spot the differences task How do they interpret the task? How do they assist each other? Is there evidence of language learning? How do they evaluate the benefits of task repetition?

15. Task interpretation (1) Excerpt 1: Line 13 Peter: A f�rd�szob�ban egy l�ny sz�ll ki a k�db�l ( in the bathroom a there is a girl getting out of the bath) Line 14: Adam: Yes and the man ++ the dog ++ near the man. Line 15: Peter: Yes, in my room there is a reading a book a man on the bed. Line 16: Adam: The +++ Line 17: Peter: The cheese is under the fridge vagy (or) ++ yes. Line 18 Adam: The window is yellow and the chicken in the window and three red flowers.

16. Task interpretation (2) Excerpt 2: Line 14: Peter: Yes, in my living room there are, there is a ball and ball and vagy egy meg egy .. van neked ( have you got one?) Line 15: Adam: Yes, in my living room van egy v�d�r meg egy �ra ( there is a bucket and a clock). Line 16: Peter: Yes, in y living room there are a TV a szob�ban van egy akv�rium amiben van egy halacska ( in the room there is a fishtank and in it a fish) Line 17: Adam: Igen( yes) In my kitchen is .. chicken. Line 18: Peter: Yes, in my living room there are six books. Line 19: Yes, in my living room is 2 cactus.

17. Task interpretation (3) Excerpt 3 Line 16: Peter: Yes, in my kitchen on the right there is a picture and on the picture is 2 children Line 17: Adam: Hol? (Where?) Line 18: Jobbra a konyh�ban. (On the right, in the kitchen) Line 19: Adam: My kitchen is two apples. Line 20: Peter: Yes, in my kitchen near the fridge there is one milk, one cheese and one bread. Line 21: Adam: Yes, in the kitchen two cactus Line 22: Peter: Yes, in my living room there is a table. Line 23: Adam: And 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 books. Line 24: Peter: No.

18. Peer assistance Excerpt 1 Line 2: Adam: Hm, a konyha ( the kitchen ) is near + near the man. Line 3: Peter: The man is eating one sandwich. A konyha ( kitchen) (is) kitchen. Nem baj( It does not matter). Line 4: Adam: Near my h�t� ( fridge) there are milk, cheese and keny�r ( bread). Line 5: Peter: Angolul ( In English) Bread. Line 6: Adam: Bread. My room is a man ++ Van egy ember egy git�rral a kez�ben (there is a man and he has got a guitar in his hand). Three lines later: Line 9: Peter: In my room there is a +++ in my room there are people and they dancing. Line 10: Adam: The kitchen is fridge, cheese near the fri, fridge, +++ the kitchen is near the apple is near the bread. And bread near the milk.

19. Language learning Peter Excerpt 1: Line 7: Peter: In my ++ right room there is a man on the bed and he is k�nyvet olvas (reading a book). Line 15: Peter: Yes, in my room there is a reading a book a man on the bed. Excerpt 2: Line 9: Peter: In my room there is a +++ in my room there are people and they are dancing. Line 31: Peter: In my room there is three people, 2 people is dancing and I sleeping on the chair. Excerpt 3: Line 10: Peter: Yes, In my living room there is a girl. Line 11: Adam: Yes. Line 12: Peter: And a boy. The boy is reading a book and the girl is sleeping.

20. Language learning Adam In the first English recording he did not attempt to use the target structure at all In the second recording he used one example incorrectly: Line 3: Adam: My living room three people draw. In the last English recording he used it again assisted by his friend: Line 13: Adam: Yeah. No. The boy is iszik( drinking) Line 14: Peter: Hm Drinking.

21. Perceived benefits of repetition After viewing the first English performance: Adam: It is not going very well. I am thinking what to say and I am waiting for Adam to say something Peter: At the beginning when we got stuck we just started a different sentence or continued in Hungarian. Adam: It was difficult to explain some words because we did not learn them in class yet. We did not learn for example that someone is listening to music with headphones on, or someone is dreaming about something. We did not learn the roof. Peter: We forgot the rooms in English and this made it more difficult. We did not know what fish was or butterfly. It was difficult to explain that someone is sleeping or doing something else.

22. Perceived benefits After viewing the last English performance: Peter: In this one I knew it was going to go well. Adam: In this one it went more smoothly. These differences were easier. We could explain the differences better. Peter: We have learnt some new words. Peter: First we picked a room, wherever I thought might be a difference. I started with that. For example, someone is sleeping or there is a cat or there is only one cactus. This is not the best way. You can take each room one by one. And first, one needs to list the objects in all the rooms. What is where.

23. Summary of changes Improved the grasp of the task Learnt to respond to each other explicitly Learnt to ask questions about ambiguous statements Learnt to focus their search more tightly Re-interpreted the task Both assisted each other throughout Both moved closer to producing target like forms for descriptions in English

24. Conclusions Task repetition of this kind is important in classrooms even at low levels of proficiency with children, not just adults; Teachers in primary schools can be more confident that interactive tasks offer multiple benefits; Closed tasks that make recycling the same kind of language possible seem to be easier. Limitations!!