1 / 32

5th UNTELE conference University of Compiègne March 2004

5th UNTELE conference University of Compiègne March 2004. An analysis of dyadic discourse within a learning environment designed for learner autonomy. by David Rees Ph.D. Institut National d’Horticulture, Angers www.multimania.com/davidrees rees@angers.inra.fr. CONTENTS.

stacey
Download Presentation

5th UNTELE conference University of Compiègne March 2004

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. 5th UNTELE conference University of Compiègne March 2004 An analysis of dyadic discourse within a learning environment designed for learner autonomy by David Rees Ph.D. Institut National d’Horticulture, Angers www.multimania.com/davidrees rees@angers.inra.fr

  2. CONTENTS 1. The learning environment 2. A typical language lesson 3. Negotiation 4. Vygotsky’s concepts of internalisation and the ZPD 5. Discourse analysis 6. Corpus analysis 7. Results 8. Conclusions

  3. 1. The learning environment ‘Grande Ecole’ with two colleges (Bac 0+5 and Bac 2+3) Applied engineering in horticulture and landscaping 2 foreign languages (for specific purposes) with compulsory minimum levels Compulsory foreign professional training period in Year 1 Highly positive attitudes for learning foreign languages Over 50% of students on inter-university exchanges

  4. All lessons in 25-post multimedia rooms, and available via intranet.

  5. 2. A typical language lesson

  6. The Tandberg pilot

  7. Pedagogy based on Mutual Scaffolding 1. Separate the class into two equal groups

  8. 2. Select the sources

  9. Video 1 Video 2 3. Diffuse the sources

  10. 4. Form intragroup dyads Macro/micro-comprehension

  11. 4. Intragroup dyad: micro-comprehension

  12. 5. Intergroup dyads (negociation)

  13. 3. Negotiation The repeating, rephrasing and restructuring of phrases in L1 or L2 between two or more learners to enable them to understand the meaning of the messages they are communicating (Long) Interlanguage (Selinker)

  14. Input 2 Input 1 Student 3 Student 1 2 1 1 Student 2 Student 4 2 Intragroup negotiation 2 Intergroup negotiation 1

  15. NNS NNS Negotiation of comprehension INFORMATION GAP Negotiation of content

  16. NNS linguistic or semiotic ‘self’ ZPD NNS linguistic or semiotic ‘self’ ZPD 2 negotiation and the ZPD Each learner assists the other since each has internalised different semiotic, linguistic or conceptual competences). Mutual scaffolding takes place.

  17. 5. Discourse Analysis Model • Problem source • Repair type • Discourse code

  18. Problem Source Problems can be due to production mistakes or comprehension difficulty Ph Phonological (caused by pronunciation or accentuation) Gr Grammatical (caused by the syntax of a word or phrase) Lx Lexical (caused by unknown or incorrect vocabulary) Cn Content (caused by lack of comprehension of the content or concept) Ds Discourse (caused by pragmatic, social or cultural misunderstanding) Ps Pause (a pause can indicate a problem and incite repair)

  19. Repair Type XL2 Explanation in L2 XL1 Explanation in L1 GT Grammatical Transformation TL1 Translation into L1 TL2 Translation into L2 Mod Model (the repair is an attempt to provide the ‘correct’ word or form) Syn Synonym (a synonym or alternate version is provided) Rep Repetition Con Confirmation Com Completion (normally following a pause; the completion of a word or phrase)

  20. Discourse Codes SR Self Repair ‘she disperses, it disperses …’ RA Requested Assistance ‘how do you say disseminer’? RR Response to Request ‘disseminer is to disperse’ / ‘I don’t know’ AC Acceptance ‘disperse, okay’ UR Unrequested Repair A. ‘who mutates ’ B. ‘that mutates’ UA Unrequested Assistance A. ‘It’s a scented fruit’ B. ‘Like the guava’ CC Confirmation Check ‘A power station, okay?’

  21. 6. Corpus Analysis

  22. 7. Results

  23. Negotiation triggers 45% lexical 11% due to silence 25% content problems

  24. Repair type 15% explanation in L2 15% translation in L1

  25. 15% completion 19% confirmation 10% repetition

  26. Discourse type 44% Request for help 20% Unrequested help 23% Confirmation check

  27. Self-repairs 43% Grammatrical transformation 50% Provision of a model

  28. Comparison of student/teacher intervention Mostly grammatical, phonetic and discourse triggers for the teacher Mostly lexical and content triggers for the students

  29. Comparison of teacher / student repair types Teacher: high degree explanation in L2 and provision of correct model Students: a wide-variety of repair types Teacher: high level of non-requested aid Students: high level of aid requests

  30. Laughter An average of 10 laughter ‘events’ per dyad per lesson

  31. 8. Conclusions Dyadic, task-based pair work maximises negotiation opportunities Negotiation leads to acquisition Negotiation is effected by: a) task type b) familiarity of partners c) cultural similarity of partners NNS-NNS negotiation appears to be more suitable than NS-NNS negotiation Technology can enhance a dyadic learning environment A technology-structured environment can enhance learner autonomy

  32. 5th UNTELE conference University of Compiègne March 2004 An analysis of dyadic discourse within a learning environment designed for learner autonomy by David Rees Ph.D. Institut National d’Horticulture, Angers www.multimania.com/davidrees rees@angers.inra.fr

More Related