i Promoting oral interaction through task-based learning ... · comunicación mediada por la tecnología en los procesos de aprendizaje de un lenguaje. ... interacción sincrónica

i

Promoting oral interaction through task-based learning activities in an EFL virtual learning

environment

Elizabeth Barraza Barrios

A thesis submitted as a requirement to obtain the degree of MA in Applied Linguistics to

the Teaching of English as a Foreign Language

Thesis Director

Clelia Pineda Baéz PhD.

Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas

School of Science and Education

Master in Applied Linguistics to TEFL

Bogotá, D.C., Colombia

2015

ii

Note of Acceptance

Thesis Director:

________________________________

Clelia Pineda Baéz PhD.

Juror:

________________________________

Juror:

________________________________

iii

Acuerdo 19 de 1988 del Consejo Superior Universitario.

Artículo 177: “La Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas no será responsable por

las ideas expuestas en esta tesis”.

iv

Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to the Supreme Being who with his

divine manifestations keeps me firm and full of faith. My gratitude to each member of my

adorable and beautiful family who always fills me with love and supports me in all my

projects. They are my light and inspiration.

My special acknowledgements to all my Master Professors, especially to Dr. Clelia

Pineda and Dr. Harold Castaneda who with their knowledge, permanent support, attention,

patience and time contributed to my professional development

I am very grateful with my dear friends Dayana, Jennifer and Cindy who always

expressed reassurance and encouragement that motivated me to finish this research project.

Last, but not least I would like to express my gratitude to my dear students, without

their valuable participation, this research project would not have been possible.

¡God bless all of them!

v

Abstract

This study aims to identify the main characteristics of synchronic oral interaction in

an EFL virtual learning environment and also investigates students’ perceptions regarding

the use of computer mediated communication tools in the language learning process. This

research project is theoretically supported by constructivism theory, social interaction and

the theoretical foundation that supports the use of computer mediated communication tools

in language learning.

The study was carried out in a public institution, which offers free vocational

education as well as free virtual English courses. Twelve elementary level students, ranging

in age from 17 to 22, were encouraged to participate in six videoconferences in which they

had to interact orally and develop task-based learning activities. The videoconferences were

developed through the technological tool Blackboard Collaborate.

The data was collected from video conferencing recordings, field notes and semi-

structure interviews. The results of this study showed that the main characteristics of

synchronic online oral interaction are collaboration, engagement and sense of belonging to

a learning community. Students were able to work together and help each other to complete

a specific task. The result also shows that when students work together in an online learning

activity, they apply different communication strategies to transmit a message and help each

other to complete a task.

Key words: Interaction, synchronic communication, collaboration, EFL virtual

environments

vi

Resumen

Este estudio tiene como objetivo identificar las principales características de la

interacción oral en un ambiente virtual de aprendizaje de inglés como lengua extranjera y

también investigar las percepciones de los estudiantes con respecto al uso de la

comunicación mediada por la tecnología en los procesos de aprendizaje de un lenguaje.

Este proyecto de investigación está fundamentado en la teoría constructivista, en la

interacción social y en los principios teóricos que fundamentan el uso de las herramientas

tecnológicas en los procesos de aprendizaje de idiomas.

El estudio fue llevado a cabo en una institución pública que ofrece educación

técnica y cursos virtuales de inglés. Doce estudiantes de nivel básico de inglés, cuyas

edades oscilan entre 17 y 22 años fueron invitados a participar en seis videoconferencias en

las cuales ellos debían interactuar oralmente y desarrollar tareas de aprendizaje. Las

videoconferencias fueron desarrolladas a través de la herramienta tecnológica Blackboard

Collaborate.

Los datos de esta investigación fueron recopilados de las grabaciones de las

videoconferencias, notas tomadas durante las videoconferencias y entrevistas hechas a los

estudiantes. Los resultados de este estudio muestran que las principales características de la

interacción sincrónica en línea son la colaboración, particación activa y sentido de

pertenencia a una comunidad de aprendizaje. Los estudiantes trabajaron juntos y se

ayudaron mutuamente para completar las tareas asignadas. Los resultados también

muestran que cuando los estudiantes trabajan juntos en el desarrollo de actividades orales,

aplican diferentes estrategias de comunicación para transmitir un mensaje y ayudarse

mutuamente para completar las tareas asignadas.

vii

Palabras claves: Interacción, comunicación sincrónica, colaboración, ambientes

virtuales de aprendizaje

viii

Table of Contents

Page

Chapter 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 12

Statement of the problem ...................................................................................... 13

Research questions and objectives ........................................................................ 19

Justification ........................................................................................................... 19

Chapter 2. Literature Review ............................................................................................ 22

Social constructivism ............................................................................................ 22

Interaction ............................................................................................................. 24

Teacher–Student Interaction ................................................................................. 26

Student-Student Interaction ................................................................................... 28

Oral interaction ..................................................................................................... 34

Interaction through computer-mediated communication tools ............................. 29

Collaboration in online learning environments ..................................................... 35

Social presence ...................................................................................................... 37

Task-based learning approach .............................. ¡Error! Marcador no definido.

Chapter 3. Research Design .............................................................................................. 40

Type of Study ........................................................................................................ 40

Context .................................................................................................................. 41

Participants ............................................................................................................ 42

ix

Ethical issues ......................................................................................................... 42

Role of the researcher ........................................................................................... 43

Data collection instruments ................................................................................... 43

Audio recordings ................................................................................................... 44

Field notes ............................................................................................................. 45

Semi-structured interviews ................................................................................... 45

Validation of the data collection instruments ....................................................... 45

Chapter 4. Instructional Design ........................................................................................ 47

Vision of curriculum ............................................................................................. 47

Vision of Language ............................................................................................... 49

Vision of learning .................................................................................................. 49

Vision of technology ............................................................................................. 50

Pedagogical intervention ...................................... ¡Error! Marcador no definido.

Activities ............................................................................................................... 55

Chapter 5. Data Analysis and findings ............................................................................. 61

Data analysis approach .......................................................................................... 61

Data analysis procedure ........................................................................................ 62

Findings ................................................................................................................. 63

Collaboration ......................................................................................................... 67

Engagement ........................................................................................................... 69

x

Social presence ...................................................................................................... 71

Learning community consolidation ...................................................................... 73

Sharing and strengthening knowledge of the language ....... ¡Error! Marcador no

definido.

Chapter 6. Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 78

Pedagogical implications ..................................................................................... 80

Limitations ............................................................................................................ 81

Further research ..................................................................................................... 82

References ............................................................................................................................. 83

xi

Table of Appendices

Page

Appendix A. Studentsćonsent form ..................................................................................... 90

Appendix B. Coordinator´s consent form ............................................................................. 92

Appendix C. Coding format .................................................................................................. 94

Appendix D. Sample of field notes ...................................................................................... 95

Appendix E. Sample of interviews ...................................................................................... 96

Appendix F. Tasks ................................................................................................................ 98

Appendix G. Sample of transcription ................................................................................ 113

Table of Figures

Figure 1-1 Operational system of the voice recognition software. ....................................... 13

Figure 1-2. Activities implemented in the English virtual course. ....................................... 14

Figure 1-3. Activities implemented in the English virtual course. ....................................... 15

Figure 1-4. Presentation of the content of the course through Blackboard Collaborate. ...... 15

Figure 1-5. Presentation of the timetable of the course through Blackboard Collaborate. ... 16

Figure 2-1. Model of online collaboration ............................................................................ 36

12 Promoting oral interaction through task-based learning activities in an EFL virtual learning environment.

Chapter 1.! Introduction

The development of learning processes through virtual learning environments are

one of the growing tendencies in education programs around the world. Without doubt,

language learning is not the exception in this tendency, primarily the learning of English, as

it is for economic and political reasons, an international language or lingua franca. In

Colombia, there are academic institutions, which offer English virtual courses to people

interested in getting new opportunities of working and to study.

This research project was carried out at SENA (Servicio Nacional de Aprendizaje),

which is a public institution that offers free vocational education to Colombians, especially

to those who do not have enough resources to attend private institutions. SENA was

founded in 1957 to provide qualified workers who could respond to the needs of industry

and commerce. Currently, SENA has 117 branches in the country. The branch in which this

study was carried out is located in Bogotá, in Chapinero neighborhood, and it offers

vocational programs such as, international commerce, marketing, logistics and

telecommunications. In addition to its vocational programs, SENA has a virtual language

program named English for All Colombians (Inglés para Todos los Colombianos), which

offers English virtual courses through a platform named Blackboard. In total, there are nine

levels of English virtual courses, from beginners to advanced, each lasting six weeks.

This study aim to characterize synchronic oral interaction in an EFL virtual learning

environment and to examine students’ perceptions regarding to the use of computer

mediated communication tools in the language learning process. This study is theoretically

supported by constructivism theory, social interaction, and the theoretical foundation that

supports the use of computer mediated communication tools in language learning.


The study is organized in six chapters. In chapter one, I present the research

problem along with the research questions, the research objectives and the justification; in

chapter two, I explain the main theories and research studies that support my investigation;

in chapter three, I present the research design, in which I describe the type of study, the

context, the participants and their characteristics along with the instruments I used to collect

my data; chapter four is composed by the instructional design, in which I explain the

principles that support my pedagogical implementation; in chapter five, I present the data

analysis report and the findings of this investigation; finally in chapter six, I summarize the

conclusions along with the pedagogical implications of this research project.

Statement of the problem

After analyzing the design and the content of SENA’s English virtual courses, I

noticed that the development of oral language skills, which is very important in the

language learning process, is limited to the repetition of words and/or sentences. No

attention has been given to the development of conversation skills as will be demonstrated

below.

The oral component of the courses is developed through a voice recognition

software in which students pronounce a word and/or a sentence and the software assesses

their accuracy only. The following example was taken from one of the classes I had during

the first semester of 2013. The software records students’ words and shows intonation

patterns. Through a blue line and the score, students identify their performance when

pronouncing the words. The figure shows an example in which a student had to pronounce

the word “hi”. In this case, she had to repeat the word four times to achieve the satisfactory

score, which is three.


Figure 1-1 Operational system of the voice recognition software.

Screen shot taken from the English learning software Tell Me More

Exercises like the ones shown in figure 1 and figure 1.1 are part of the mechanical

practices that students have to perform to accomplish the oral component of the course.

Apart from the limitation in the development of oral skills, I have also observed that

the interactional part of the English course is very restrictive. The activities do not allow

students to interact with their classmates and/or work collaboratively. All the activities are

focused on individual work, rather than on group work activities. Basically, as shown in the

figures 1.2 and 1.3, students follow instructions, complete grammar and vocabulary

Figure 1. Operational system of the voice recognition software. Screen shot taken from the English learning software: Tell me more


exercises, among other tasks. This illustrates that most of the activities are restricted to

individual exercises without any interaction:

Figure 1-2. Activities implemented in the English virtual course.

Screen shot taken from the English learning software: Tell me more

Figure 1-3. Activities implemented in the English virtual course.


As the previous figures showed the possibilities that students have to interact with

their classmates and use the target language are limited.

Figure 1.2. Activities implemented in the English virtual course. Screen shot taken from the English learning software: Tell me more


One of the principles that guides my teaching practices is Vygotsky’s (1978) idea

that knowledge and understanding are socially constructed through talk, activity, and

interaction. I think students learn better, when they listen to each other, exchange

knowledge, experiences and strategies that they bring to a learning situation. I consider

fundamental to offer spaces in which students have opportunities to interact, share and

construct knowledge among them. Based on this idea, I started looking for options that

would allow me to offer spaces in which students could interact and practice the language

orally.

SENA’s educational platform includes a very useful tool called Blackboard

Collaborate. The tool offers instant messaging and videoconferencing whereby students

can interact synchronically. However, it has only been used to provide information about

the courses, schedules and activities students have to develop, which disregards the

potential of the tool to stimulate synchronic interaction. The following sample illustrates

the use that has been given to the tool until now:


Figure 1-4. Presentation of the content of the course through Blackboard Collaborate.


Figure 1-5. Presentation of the timetable of the course through Blackboard Collaborate.


It is important to recall that synchronic interaction is defined as a process that

occurs in real time and allows for the immediacy of feedback and responses. Through this

kind of communication, students can interact in real time, regardless of where they are

physically located (Romiszowski & Mason, 2004). It is my contention that as a teacher, I

can take advantage of the tool to provide opportunities for students to have synchronic

interaction that allows them to use the target language and develop their oral language

skills.


The literature on virtual education has revealed that tools such as Blackboard

Collaborate are fundamental to changing the dynamic of online education (Peterson,

(Peterson, 2009); (Bahrani, 2011). These kinds of tools allow students to participate in

interactive activities and work collaboratively with their classmates within online learning

environments. Computer-mediated communication tools are interactive and collaborative.

They provide opportunities to achieve diverse pedagogical goals. For instance, Ming and

Murugaiah (2010) developed a pedagogic strategy in which they used a computer mediated

communication tool to foster interactive and reflective learning among distance learners at

a public university in Malaysia. They found that the students acquired significant cognitive

benefits and valuable practical oral learning skills through the online discussions.

Hampel & Stickler (2012) found that the use of videoconferences in online language

teaching stimulates the use of language orally and elicits new patterns of communication. In

addition, Lee (2007) highlighted that the use of videoconferences supports collaborative

learning and encourages the development of speaking skills by urging participants to take

an active role in their own learning processes. There are two more cases where researchers

have found that synchronic online interaction through videoconferences is effective in

supporting collaborative learning and fostering L2 oral communication (Stewart, Harlow, &

DeBacco, 2011); Ochoa, 2010)

Considering the amount of work that has been done using these kinds of computer

mediated communication tools and that the evidence suggests that it certainly has a positive

impact in the development of oral skills, my intention is to design a pedagogical

intervention based on the implementation of task-based learning activities through the

Blackboard Collaborate tool. This way I hope to stimulate students from SENA to interact

with their peers and teachers, and practice speaking skill. This pedagogical proposal


emerges as a response to the need to create and offer synchronic spaces for students to live

and experience the language. It is intended to go beyond the mere mechanization of

linguistic structures, opening spaces that allow students to develop their oral skills while

they interact and work collaboratively completing task-based learning activities.

Research questions and objectives

Taking into consideration the situation previously presented, this research aims to

answer the following questions:

What characteristics of interaction emerge when implementing oral learning

activities in an EFL virtual learning environment through a synchronic communication

tool?

What are students’ views on their participation in synchronic oral learning activities

within an EFL virtual learning environment?

Research objectives

−! Identify the main characteristics of the interaction carried out in an EFL virtual

learning environment that uses Blackboard collaborate.

−! Examine features of collaboration among students in an EFL virtual learning

environment.

−! Determine students’ perspectives and insights about their participation in oral

learning activities in an EFL virtual learning environment.

Justification

This research aims to characterize the interaction that emerges when implementing

oral learning activities in an EFL virtual learning environment, particularly when the


students dialogue synchronically through the Blackboard Collaborate tool. Additionally, it

aims to determine from student’s perspective on the impact of synchronous oral interaction,

and how it affects their language learning development.

As previously stated, the use of virtual environments as a resource to develop

learning processes has brought out the possibility to use computer-mediated

communication tools that have the potential to support students’ communication and

interaction. Considering this, it is relevant to specify the characteristics of the interaction

carried out through computer-mediated communication tools in order to establish the extent

to which the development of task-based learning activities through synchronous interaction

enriches the language learning process. In addition, this research study will be relevant to

SENA, as it aims to use the information and communication technologies, particularly the

Blackboard Collaborate tool, to modify the way in which the English virtual courses have

been conducted until now and change the passive role that teachers and students have

played in the virtual courses so far. The idea is that both teacher and students participate

actively in the course and they can perceive each other as real people in spite of the virtual

environment in which the course is been carried out. The findings of this investigation

could also contribute to improve the quality of the English virtual courses and hence, the

language learning process of SENA’s students. Through this pedagogical implementation

students may develop social and communicative strategies which will allow them to

participate dynamically in their learning process and hence have a better performance in

their professional development.

The study can also confirm (or disconfirm) some of the findings of previous studies

regarding the use of synchronic communication tools to foster interaction. It will serve to

expand the knowledge we have about platforms and their application in EFL contexts such


as the Colombian one. It is expected that teachers can also benefit from the results of this

study as it could provide useful information on the use of the platform as well as on its

possibilities to foster meaningful communication, especially for students who do not have

access to face-to-face English sessions.

In the next chapter, I am going to present the theoretical framework and studies that

support this research project. It includes principles of interaction, the use of computer-

mediated communication tools in language learning, and theories about task-based learning

approach which form the basis of my pedagogical Implementation.


Chapter 2.! Literature Review

The main theories reviewed to support this research study are essentially about

social constructivism and the fundamental role of social interaction in the learning

processes. I also reviewed research studies, which showed the benefits of using

synchronous communication tools to facilitate the interaction within virtual learning

environments. In this chapter, I present the theoretical foundations that support this

proposal along with brief descriptions of research studies on the main constructs associated

to interaction in online learning environment; I also present the concepts of task- based

learning approach to support the pedagogical intervention I implemented in this research

project.

Social constructivism

According to social constructivism theory, learning is an active, social and

collaborative process through which learners construct knowledge with others. From this

perspective, communication and interaction play a fundamental role in any learning

experience (Vygotsky, 1978, cited in Ellis, 1999). In other words, social constructivism

states that knowledge cannot be developed in isolation, but through social interaction.

Rather than viewing learning as an internal process of knowledge transfer, whereby

knowledge is transferred from the individual’s external environment into their memory,

constructivism theory conceives that the learning process is constructed by creation of

knowledge through interpretation of their experiences and the interaction with other

individuals (McMahon, (1997); Flavell & Piaget, (1963)1963).


Social constructivism theory understands learning as a cumulative process.

According to Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, in the process of learning, a

student goes through four stages. First, the learner in order to complete a particular task

needs support from a more competent individual. This stage is defined as other-regulation.

Progressively, the student is able to work on his own, and complete the task without

support, thus reaching the stage of self-regulation (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000)

The stage of assisted performance precedes that of unassisted, independent acting is

the crucial point in the socio-cultural conception of learning. In language learning, one of

the ways in which such assistance can be provided is by means of scaffolding. (Vygotsky

1978, cited in Raymond, (2000)) defined scaffolding instruction as the role of teachers and

others in supporting the learner’s development and providing support structures to get to

that next stage or level. An important aspect of scaffolding instruction is that the scaffolds

are transitory. As the learner’s abilities increase, the scaffolding provided by the more

knowledgeable other is gradually removed. Finally the learner is able to complete the task

or master the concepts independently (Chang, Chen, & Sung, 2002).

According to Hartman (2002), the main goal of the educator when using the

scaffolding, teaching strategy is for the student to become an independent and self-

regulating learner and problem solver. As the student’s knowledge and learning

competency improves, the educator progressively reduces the supports provided

(Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). In the educational setting, scaffolds may include

models, cues, prompts, hints, partial solutions, think-aloud modeling and direct instruction

(Hartman, 2002). Another scaffolding strategy that can be used to help students solve a

problem or complete a task is the use of questions. Teachers may increase the level of


questioning or insist on accuracy until the student is able to provide a correct response

(Olson & Platt, 2000).

One of the main advantages of scaffolding is that it engages the students. The

student does not quietly listen to information presented. Instead, through teacher prompting

the learner builds on prior knowledge and forms new knowledge. In working with students

who have low self-esteem and learning difficulties, it provides an opportunity to give

positive feedback which motivate students to learn (Hartman, 2002)

Interaction

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of

Europe, 2004) defines interaction as follows:

In interaction, at least two individuals participate in an oral and/ or written

exchange in which production and reception alternate and may in fact

overlap in oral communication. Not only two interlocutors may be speaking

and yet listening to each other simultaneously. Even where turn taking is

strictly respected, the listener is generally already forecasting the remainder

of the speaker’s message and preparing a response. Learning to interact thus

involves more than listening to receive and to produce utterances. (p.14)

Interaction goes further than the mere fact of listening and produce utterances, that

is why in this research project, I propose to offer a learning environment in which students

interact freely, bring out their creativity, find and apply communicative strategies to

transmit the message they want to communicate.


Communicative competence theories highlight the importance of interaction as

human beings use language in several contexts to negotiate meaning, or simply stated, to

get one idea out of your head and into the head of another person and vice versa (Brown,

1994). According to Ellis (1990), interaction is meaning-focused and carried out to

facilitate the exchange of information and prevent communication breakdowns. However,

classroom interaction is of a particular essence and a range of functions, including formal

instruction, whole-class and task management and development of group cohesion. Hence,

it involves everything communicative happening in the classroom. Ellis defines classroom

interaction as: not only to those exchanges involving authentic communication but to every

oral exchange that occurs in the classroom, including those that arise in the course of

formal drilling…” (Ellis, Instructed second language acquisition: learning in the classroom,

1990, p. 12)

As it will be shown in the data analysis chapter the interaction that came out during

the pedagogical implementation involved questions, negotiation of meaning, expression of

opinions, comments and requirements that were fundamental to develop students´ language

skills and to help them to advance and participate actively in their learning process.

According to Robinson (1994), there are two types of classroom interaction: non-

verbal interaction and verbal interaction. The first is associated with behavioral responses

in the classroom. This means that students interact through their behaviors such as head

nods, hand raises, body gestures, and eye contact. In contrast, the second kind of

interaction consists of written and oral interaction. Written interaction is the style of

interaction in which students write out their ideas or thoughts. In other words, they interact

with others through written words, documents and so forth. On the other hand, oral

interaction involves students interacting with others by speaking in class, answering and


asking questions, making comments, and taking part in discussions. It is precisely this one

the kind of interaction which is the focus of this research project.

Angelo (1993) points out that classroom interaction include teacher-student and

student-student interaction. These two kinds of interaction arose during the pedagogical

implementation, especially students –students’ interaction. Students participated in the

online interaction, working together, exchanging knowledge, helping and encouraging

each other and using communicative strategies that allowed them accomplished the

assigned task and developed their social skills.

Teacher–Student Interaction

This kind of interaction takes place between the teacher and the class, small groups,

or individuals in the class. In the classroom, the teacher often asks questions to students,

which they answer, and vice versa. Questioning is the strategy that the teacher uses in direct

interaction with the students. According to Corey (1940) as cited by Hargie et al., (1981)),

the teacher asking questions is a fundamental and important means of classroom

interaction. It is considered one of the teacher’s initiating activities and facilitates students’

language acquisition by asking questions and initiating responses from students.

Questioning is one of the elementary strategies through which the teacher encourages

student thinking and learning.

Ur´s (2000) holds the view that the teacher asking questions serves purposes such as

letting learners present their ideas, test their understanding of knowledge or skills, engage

them actively in participating in learning, stimulate their thinking and getting them to

review and practice previously learnt materials. In the opinion of Kissock and Lyortsuun

(1982), questions keep the central role, so it is important that teachers are familiar with


impact questions for communicating and learning in the classroom, and find ways to

improve the use of questions by themselves and by their students. The purpose of

pedagogical questions is to stimulate, transfer and guide reflection processes of the students

and help them to recall what they have learnt.

Long et al. (1984) states that questioning stimulates the teacher-learner interaction

and ensures that all students participate in their learning. Long and Sato (1983) propose two

questioning techniques for the teacher in EFL classrooms: referential and display questions.

Display questions are those for which the teacher previously knows the answers and

requires students to display knowledge. This kind of question is asked for comprehension

checks, confirmation checks or clarification requests. With display questions, not only does

the teacher know the correct answers, but students have also more possibilities to know

them. Display questions are used in EFL classrooms to foster practice in the target language

and to increase students’ participation in the form of natural conversation.

On the other hand, referential questions are those in which the teacher does not

already know the answers. Hence, it has greater potential to generate social discourse. With

the purpose for communicating rather than testing the students’ knowledge, these kinds of

questions are used when the teacher’s purpose is to develop students’ speaking skills and to

create a social-like environment in the classroom (Brock, 1986). Consequently, when these

types of questions are asked, learners are expected to give interpretations and opinions, so

they will have authentic communicative purposes. Referential questions demand extended

and complex answers. These kinds of questions are mostly used in high proficient language

classroom.

According to Brock (1986) and Long and Sato (1983), classroom interaction is

characterized by the use of display questions. They encourage language learners, especially


beginners, to get interested because these questions require short answers and contain small

pieces of information such as parts of speech, word stress, intonation, antonyms and

synonyms, word pronunciation and meaning. Display questions require short or even one-

word answers and are less likely to get learners to produce large amounts of speech. These

kinds of questions abounded in the interaction carried out in this research project. As it can

be seen in the transcriptions of the online sessions, the majority of questions that students

posed during the pedagogical implementation attempted to accomplish comprehension

checks, confirmation checks or clarification requests. The aim was always to foster

interaction and encourage the practice of the target language.

Student-Student Interaction

Student-student interaction takes place among groups of students. In this type of

interaction, the teacher plays a role as a monitor and learners are the main participants.

Researchers (Gillies, (2006)2006; Storch, 2001) state that practice is the most effective

strategy to develop collaboration and social skills when applied to small groups or peers

rather than with the teacher or in a whole class setting.

Harmer (2001) suggests that pair work increases the amount of talking time

available to every student in the classroom. It allows learners to work and interact

independently without the necessary guidance of the teacher, therefore promoting students’

independence. Student-student interaction allows teachers to have time to work with one or

more pairs while other students continue working. This collaboration helps the classroom

become a more comfortable and friendly place. According to Sullivan (2000), the teacher

should frequently use group work to maximize each student’s opportunity to speak and

reduce the psychological difficulty of public performance. Rulon and McCreary (1986)


state that students express broader range of language functions in group work than in class-

wide work with a teacher.

Furthermore, Doughty and Pica (1986) point out that in-group work activities it is

more possible to lead to negotiation of meaning and collaboration than in interaction with

the teacher. Wegerif et al (1999) define the conditions required for collaborative interaction

as follows: (1) all information is shared; (2) the group seeks to reach agreement; (3) the

group takes responsibility for decisions; (4) reasons are expected; (5) challenges are

expected; (6) alternatives are discussed before a decision is taken; and (7) all in the group

are encouraged to speak by the other group members. (p.5)

All these conditions were offered during the online interaction carried out in this

research project. The students had the opportunity to share information, construct

knowledge, interact and work together to achieve the same goal, working collaboratively

and developing social skills.

Interaction through computer-mediated communication tools

Wagner (1994) defines interaction in a distance education context as “reciprocal

events that require at least two objects and two actions. Interactions occur when these

objects and events mutually influence one another” (p. 8). Additionally, Siemens (2005)

states that interaction in virtual learning environments is a process that happens between the

learner and the learning environment (the tutor, the students, and learning content) in which

the learner takes a more active role. Likewise, Palloff and Pratt (1999) point out that

interaction refers to the significant student-student and student teacher contact that has

become the indication of online learning; in other words, in online environments, students

learn when they interact among themselves and with their teachers. The common aspect


among the previous three points of view is that all of them mention the reciprocal exchange

between two subjects and the important role that environment plays in those exchanges.

Interaction in virtual learning environments is possible through computer-mediated

communication tools such as blogs, wikis, forums, instant messenger, electronic white

board, and web-based real-time audio and video conferencing, which offer conditions for

people to interact regardless of where they are physically located. In virtual learning

environments, there are two types of interactions: asynchronous and synchronous. In

asynchronous interaction, participants do not communicate with others in real time, for

example, in contexts such as virtual forums and e-mail. On the other hand, synchronous

interaction occurs in real time, similar to face-to-face conversations, in which interlocutors

can expect immediate responses from one another (Murray, 2004)

The use of synchronous communication tools as a mean to promote interaction has

been the focus of several research studies in the language-learning field. Hampel and

Stickler (2012) carried out an action research study in which they showed the benefits of

using an application that combines audio, video and text chat for negotiating meaning, and

emphasized the socio-affective advantages, specifically for distance learning contexts. In

their study, they focused on discourse functions, and reported that during the synchronous

multimodal interaction, the most predominant characteristics were social conversations

(greetings and farewells), management of technology, negotiating meaning (related to the

task) to reach mutual understanding during the interaction, off-task conversation among

students, and teacher feedback.

Wu et al (2011) illustrates how videoconferences produce beneficial changes in

motivation, confidence, and improvements in English spoken abilities. These authors found

in their study that even a small amount of spoken interaction in English made students more


comfortable in applying their skills, more confident in what they had learned, and more

inspired to make global, cross-cultural connections. Moreover, they remarked that

providing authentic interaction could move learners from a state of passivity to active

highly motivated learning. Lee (2007) also carried out a research which reveals that

videoconferencing is a useful technological tool to provide opportunities for students to

develop communicative language skills through audio and visual interaction in real time.

The findings of the study show that during the computer-mediated interaction, students co-

construct meaning and develop communicative language skills. The study also reveals that

the spoken interaction gave the students the opportunity to socially engage in negotiation of

meaning using the target language.

Researchers such as Maushak and Ou (2007) and Stewart et al (2011) state that the

implementation of synchronous interaction through videoconferences allows dynamic

collaborative work among students. Videoconferencing is also recognized as an effective

tool in online learning environments, making possible conversations among students and

teachers in real time, without physically being together in the same place; additionally,

Maor and Volet (2007) state that online discussions through videoconferences contribute to

improving speaking skills, as well as to the quality of learning in virtual learning

environments.

Research studies also have shown that synchronous online interaction is not only

beneficial to develop language cognitive processes, but also to develop social and

emotional aspects such as motivation, sense of belonging to a community, and social

presence. As reported by Warschauer (1996), communicating in L2 through synchronous

computer-mediated communication tools leads to a significant motivational increase in

students. Peterson (2012) carried out a qualitative study in which he sought to examine how


a group of 14 undergraduate EFL students handle their target language while interact

through a synchronous computer mediated communication tool; he found that synchronous

interaction is helpful for students in creating a sense of belonging in a social learning

community. According to his findings, the interaction in the virtual learning environment

was characterized by the use of strategies, which promoted the creation and maintenance of

a collaborative environment, the development of the target language and a supportive

atmosphere. Likewise, Ryle and Cumming (2007) conducted a research study in which they

aimed to find out the effective strategies to form a successful online learning community;

they found that synchronous online communication is a fundamental element to promote

interaction and collaboration. According to their findings, the collaboration came out when

students interact, encourage and facilitate each other’s efforts to reach the group’s goals.

Their study also revealed that synchronous interaction enables deeper learning through

discourse and helps with retention issues by increasing motivation and reducing feelings of

isolation.

Similarly, Ochoa (2010) carried out a research study in ten public universities in

Andalucía (Spain), which aimed to answer questions about the advantages of the use of

ICT’s in English language teaching and learning processes. She found that synchronous

interaction in virtual learning environments encourages students to create a constructionist

and cooperative English learning community. “Students helped each other. They often

volunteered to help their virtual classmates. The virtual language students were initiators,

for example, creating different conversation threads to practice English. They were willing

to help others because they felt comfortable in a community where learning takes place.

Such a collaborative spirit promotes cooperative learning” (p. 61)


Carreño (2014) carried out a research study in a private university in Bogotá

(Colombia) which aimed to explore the collaborative practices of a group of intermediate

level students, and the way in which students’ interactions in a virtual forum contribute to

the establishment of a learning community. The findings of the study revealed that that as

students participated in collaborative tasks, they gradually strength their relationships and

their sense of belonging to the group. Additionally the study showed that as interaction and

exchanges became more productive and enriching, the goals proposed were more

elaborated and students were aware that listening to others and taking into account what

others thought had as crucial components of a collective knowledge construction process.

Romaña (2015) also conducted an investigation in a Colombian university with adult

students, in which he presents the results of a research project on the teaching, and learning

English with synchronous computer mediated communication tools. The study concluded

that the online synchronic communication helped the students to practice their oral

language skills and at the same time expand their social relationships not only with their

classmates but also with other people they knew from diverse contexts. The study also

revealed that students seemed to use the language as a means of constructing their social

networks.

As it can be observed, these studies demonstrated that the use of computer mediated

communication tools makes possible the development of social interaction in online

learning environments. According to the findings of these investigations, computer

mediated communication tools allow the co-construction of a dynamic collaborative work

environment in which students joint efforts to achieve a common goal. The studies also

revealed that the use of synchronous communication tools generate beneficial changes in

motivation, provide opportunities for the development of communicative language skills,


and offer to the students the opportunity to engage in meaning negotiation using the target

language. All these studies support my proposal about the benefits of using synchronous

communication tools as a way to promote interaction and develop oral language skills.

Oral interaction

Kellal (2006) points out that a person is different from members of other species

because it interacts, i.e. because it is related to other members of its species through oral

verbal interactions. To speak is to interact, i.e. oral verbal interaction is the fundamental

reality of language. Along any communicative exchange, the different participants or

interacting exerts on each other a network of mutual influences: talk is to exchange and

change by exchanging. These mutual influences are diverse and variable according to the

type of interaction.

According to the common European Framework of Reference (2001), oral

interaction is defined as the skill in which the language user acts alternately as speaker and

listener with one or more partners to jointly build a conversation through the negotiation of

meanings according to the principle of cooperation. Thus, the activities of oral interaction

such as conversation or interview, must involve a process of two-way communication that

is not just the sum of expression more understanding. As Hernandez (2007) states,

interaction occurs "when the student talks taking into account what has already been said,

and this can be seen in the form of beginning his shift of word". (p.613)

At least two individuals participate in the interaction, in an oral or written exchange

in which the expression and understanding alternate and may indeed overlap in oral

communication. May not only be talking and listening each other two partners

simultaneously; even when respecting strictly the speaking time, listener generally is


already predicting the rest of the message of the speaker and preparing a response. Learn to

interact, therefore, involves more than learning to understand and produce spoken

expressions. Generally, great importance is attributed to interaction in the use and the

learning of the language given its central role in the communication. (Martínez, 2007)

However, to ensure a communicative exchange, it is not enough with two speakers

or more to speak alternately (Kellal, 2006). In addition, have to speak, i.e. it is essential

that both engage in the exchange and causing signs of this commitment, by resorting to

various procedures for interlocutory validation such as greetings, presentations, and other

rituals. However, interlocutory validation is carried out mostly with media more

inconspicuous but fundamental. In addition, the psychosocial aspects of those who

participate in the interaction are selected, are activated and are interpreted in the concrete

course of exchange. The way as people “start” interacting, the roles or roles who choose,

the position taken with respect to the situation in which are found and how will playing the

positions of others, are crucial to the initiation and development of face-to-face interactions.

Collaboration in online learning environments

According to Dillenbourg (1999), collaboration is a situation in which students

work together to achieve a goal. Pallof and Pratt (2005) point out that collaboration is

fundamental for any course that bases its theoretical foundation in constructivism learning

theory. Collaboration in a constructivism classroom generates not only personal meaning

making on the part of the individual student, but also creates a space wherein social

construction of knowledge and meaning can occur (Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell,

& Haag, 1995). Through collaborative learning activities, students expand fundamental

abilities for personal and professional development. Brookfield (1995) argues that


collaborative processes promote initiative, creativity, critical-thinking skills, and dialogue

on the part of the students. In addition, Pallof and Pratt (1999) indicate that collaboration in

online learning environments assists with deeper levels of knowledge generation, addresses

all learning styles, addresses issues of culture and allows students to create a shared goal for

learning and forms the foundation of a learning community.

In online environments, collaboration can be seen as the significant element of the

learning experience. Everything that students engage in online, from participation on a

discussion board to working in small groups, can be viewed as collaboration (Palloff &

Pratt, 1999). By learning together in a collaborative learning environment, students have

the opportunity to enhance and extend their knowledge, examine new ideas and receive

critical and helpful feedback. According to Preece (2000), collaboration forms the

foundation of an online learning community; it brings students together to support the

learning of each member of the group while promoting creativity and critical thinking.

Palloff and Pratt (1999) proposed the model illustrated in the following figure, in which

they state that online collaboration is built around the notions of social presence,

constructivism, and the use of an online learning community. These elements interact

jointly to create a successful online learning experience.


Figure 2-1. Model of online collaboration

Pallof, R. and Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

It is important to mention that teachers are fundamental in the development of a

collaborative learning environment. According to Srinivas (2011), teachers are an essential

part of that collaborative process. This process occurs in several ways, from the way in

which the teacher sets phases of collaborative activities to the way activities are evaluated.

Palloff and Pratt (1999) also assert that collaborative activities require that teachers

empower students to take responsibility on the construction of their own knowledge.

Social presence in online learning environments

The concept of social presence has been defined from many points of views. Short

et al (The social psychology of telecommunication, 1976) defined social presence as the

degree to which a person is perceived as real in communication that is conducted through

some form of media. Garrison et al. (2000), on the other hand, defined social presence as

the ability of students “to present themselves socially and emotionally, as real people” (p.

94). Tu and McIsaac (2002) define social presence as the degree of feeling, perception, and


reaction of being connected by computer mediated communication to another person.

Likewise, Picciano (2002) defined social presence as student’s perceptions of being in and

belonging to an online course.

According to Polhemus et al. (2000) signals such as: personal forms of address, and

acknowledgement of others, expressions of feeling, humor, social sharing, and the use of

textual paralanguage, symbols such as emoticons, font color, different fonts, capitalization,

and symbols or characters for expressions are indicators that social presence has emerged in

an online learning environment. Research studies of online learning environment have

found that the perception of social presence has been essential to generate positive learning

outcomes and students’ satisfaction with the online courses. Picciano (2002) found a strong

connection among students’ perception of interaction, social presence, and learning. Tu and

Corry (2002) conducted a qualitative study, in which they aimed to find out about computer

mediated communication and social presence in online learning environment. They found

that in online learning environment, there are three dimensions of social presence, which

are social context, online communication, and interaction. Social context is built from the

characteristics of the computer mediated communication users’ and their perception of

environment. Online communication is associated with the language used online and its

characteristics and applications such as computer literacy skills, online immediacy, and

online language skills. Online communication has variables, which describe computer-

mediated communication as motivating, conveying feelings, emotions, expressiveness, etc.

Interactivity is related with the active communication, the learning activities in which

students engage, and the communication styles used by computer mediated communication

users, such as response time, task types, topics, etc. (Tu and Corry, 2002). As it is going to

be presented in the data analysis, characteristics of social presence and their three


dimensions -social context, online communication and interactivity- were evident during

the students’ interaction carried out in this research project.

In this chapter, I have presented the theoretical foundations that underpin this

research project. The next chapter outlines the research design in which I present the

methodology and the elements that frame this study.


Chapter 3.! Research Design

Taking into consideration that this research study aims to identify the main

characteristics of synchronic interaction within an EFL virtual learning environment, and

know students’ view in regards to online synchronic interaction. It was fundamental to

select a suitable research methodology that allowed me answer the proposed research

questions.

This chapter is organized in six sections, in which I explain the methodology, the

context, the characteristics of the participants, the ethical issues, the researcher role, along

with the description of the data collection instruments and their corresponding validation.

Type of Study

I define this research as a qualitative grounded theory study that used a descriptive

and interpretative perspective to identify the main characteristics of synchronic online

interaction and to describe students’ views on regards to their participation in the online

interaction. According to Charmaz (2006) grounded theory consists of systematic and

flexible guidelines for collecting and analyzing qualitative data to construct theories from

the data. Therefore, the data shape the foundation of the theory and the analysis of the data

generates the concepts.

In grounded theory, the data is constructed through observations, interactions and

materials that are collected about a specific topic or setting. Strauss and Corbin (1990)

points out that grounded theory is a qualitative research method in which theory emerges

from the data through the implementation of an inductive process rather that a deductive

one. This type of study fit with the purpose of this research since this inductive method of


analyzing data allowed me identify, describe and characterize the oral interaction carried

out in online sessions.

According to Glaser and Strauss (1967), the final product of a grounded theory

study is an integrated and comprehensive grounded theory that explains a process or

scheme associated with a phenomenon. In this case, grounded theory method was the

fundamental to characterize the online interaction as well as describe students’ view in

regards to online synchronic interaction.

Context

This research study was carried out at SENA (Servicio Nacional de Aprendizaje), it

is a public institution founded in 1957, whose main objective is to provide free vocational

education to Colombians, especially those who do not have the resources to attend private

institutions. The mission of SENA is to offer integral and professional education in order to

prepare Colombians to work in activities that contribute to the social, economic and

technological development of the country. In its mission, SENA projects itself as an

institution able to make important contribution to increase Colombia’s competitiveness.

SENA has 117 learning centers distributed in all departments of Colombia. The

learning center where this research project was implemented is named Centro de Gestión

de Mercados Logística y Tecnologías de la Información, it is located in the Chapinero

neighborhood and it offers vocational education programs such as logistic, international

business, marketing and ICTS to around 1,200 students, in the morning and afternoon

shifts.

In addition to its vocational programs, SENA also has a virtual language program

named (Inglés para todos los colombianos). This program offers English courses, which are


delivered online. The courses are developed in a virtual platform named Blackboard and

through a software named “Tell me more”. In total, there are nine levels of English virtual

courses, from beginners to advanced, and each level lasts for six weeks.

Participants

The participants of this research project were a group of 12 students composed by 8

girls and 4 boys who were enrolled in the elementary English virtual course. They were

from different places in Colombia (Bogotá, Bucaramanga, Santa Marta, Tolima and Cali).

Their ages range from 17 to 22 years old. All of them were studying at SENA, in vocational

programs such as International Business, Marketing and Logistic.

These participants were selected after considering typical case sampling (Patton,

2002). This strategy involves selecting participants who exhibit typical, or average,

characteristics of the group being studied. The purpose of using typical cases is not to make

generalized statements about the experiences of all participants, but to be illustrative rather

than definitive (Patton, 2002).

Ethical issues

Considering ethical issues, I informed the students and the institution about the

development of this research project. Then I asked for permission through a written consent

form (see appendix A and B) in which I provided information about purpose of the study,

the way the data was going to be collected, and a guarantee that the data was going to be

confidential, and used only with research and academic purposes. The coordinator and the


students signed up the consent form as an approval of their free and voluntary participation

in the research study.

Role of the researcher

Taking into account that I participated in the online sessions, my role as researcher

was participant-observer. My participation was mostly in the two first online sessions, once

students were familiar with the technological tool and with the dynamic of the learning

activities, I concentrated my attention on observe and register actions that called my

attention and that I considered could enrich my data.

In regards to participant-observer role, Breen (2007) states that the main

characteristic of this kind of role is that researcher is the main data collection instrument.

Besides that, he/she collects data by participating in the life of those under study while

observing them, having a better understanding of their culture without altering the course of

their natural interaction, being able to produce a significant description of the phenomenon

in its natural setting.

Data collection instruments

As in other qualitative approaches, the data for a grounded theory can come from

several sources. The data collection instruments include interviews and observation. In

addition to other sources such as documents, video and audio recordings, newspapers,

letters, books and any source of information that might enlighten the question under study

(Glasser & Strauss, 1967). In this case the data collection instruments used to identify the

characteristics of synchronic online interaction, and describe students’ views in regards to


synchronic online interaction were audio recordings transcripts of the conversations

developed in the online sessions, field notes and semi-structured interviews which are

described in the following sections.

Audio recordings

According to Burns (2010) audio recordings are a technique used to capture in

detail accurate information on patterns of interactional behavior, which may not be evident

during the class. This instrument was used to record students’ interaction in the online

sessions. Through the audio recordings, I obtained the richest amount of data since I

recorded all the sessions, and I had the opportunity to listen students’ interaction over and

over again to get information that allowed me characterize students’ online interaction. The

audio recordings were transcript into an excel document (see appendix C) which allowed

me organized and coded the data to identify the main patterns and commonalities of the

interaction. Schegloff (1992) points out that transcripts are a rich source to collect

qualitative data since they allow the data to be shown as it happens in situations. Likewise

Silverman (2001) states that transcriptions offer a number of advantages, such as:

−! They are public records available to the scientific community.

−! With transcripts it is possible to do a detailed analysis observing sequences of

utterances.

−! They offer the opportunity of having the talk-in-interaction in the moment of

occurrence.


Field notes

Freeman (1998) points out that field notes are description of accounts of observed

events, including non-verbal information, physical setting, group structures and interactions

between participants. This instrument was used during the online session. While students

interacted, I registered actions that called my attention, wrote reflections and comments.

Field notes allowed me write my thoughts about the synchronic online interaction which

enriched my data. The field notes were taken in a word document and were labeled with the

number and the date of the session (See appendix D)

Semi-structured interviews

In order to know students’ views in regards to their participation in the synchronic

online interaction, I implemented semi-structured interviews, which gave me the

opportunity to talk to the students about the impact that the online interaction had caused on

them. Burns (1999) points out that “This type of interview has the advantage of enabling

the interviewee’s as well as the interviewer’s perspective to inform the research agenda,

and therefore gives rise to a more equal balance in the research relationship. In addition, it

allows for the emergence of themes and topics which may not have been anticipated when

the investigation began” p. 120. An example of this instrument is presented in appendix E.

Validation of the data collection instruments

These data collection instruments were validated by piloting the instruments with

the students. According to (Bannan-Ritland, 2003) piloting is the process during which the

conceptual ideas for an intervention are formulated while the intervention phase is

systematically articulated to test the hypotheses proposed. I piloted these instrument in two


online sessions in which I noticed that students could interact through Blackboard

collaborate tool using the target language as well as I could record the online session and

take notes while students interact. The piloting was also an opportunity to become aware of

some technical issues related to sound and audio that I had to adjust in order to make the

online session successful. After this validation process I confirmed that these instrument

were effective to collect useful data that allow me answer my research questions.


Chapter 4.! Instructional Design

In this chapter, I describe the pedagogical intervention through which I obtained

significant data about the characteristics of synchronic interaction within an EFL virtual

learning environment. As I mention in the previous chapters, the main problem presented in

English virtual courses at SENA, is that students do not have the opportunity to interact

with their classmates and develop their oral language skills. The pedagogical intervention

presented below was planned to offer an English virtual course in which students have not

only the opportunity to develop reading, writing, listening and pronunciation skills, but also

the opportunity to use the target language orally, interact one another, co-construct

knowledge, develop communication strategies, social competences, and teamwork skills.

In the following sections, I present the theoretical foundations that support my

visions of curriculum, language, learning and technology along with the description of the

learning activities I implemented to foster oral interaction among students.

Vision of curriculum

Curriculum refers to the totality of content to be taught and aims to be realized

within one school or educational program (White, 1988). According to Nunan (1999),

curriculum development is divided into syllabus design, methodology, and evaluation.

Syllabus design has to do with selecting and sequencing content, methodology with

selecting and sequencing appropriate learning experiences, and evaluation with appraising

learners and determining the effectiveness of the curriculum as a whole. Each element of

curriculum should be based on theoretical principles that guide the pedagogical actions


carried out in a specific learning context. The learning activities implemented in this

pedagogical intervention were design based on constructivism learning theory principles.

The main principles of the constructivist learning theory can be summarized as

follows:

Learning is a social activity that takes place in an environment that stresses the role

of the cultural context (Vygotsky, 1978); learning is an active process in which learners

construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current and past knowledge, instructors

should serve as facilitators and encourage students to discover new knowledge by

themselves (Bruner, 1986). Learners build their own knowledge through experience, but

not through given information (Piaget, 1973). The fundamental idea of constructivism

learning theory is that learners construct their own knowledge through experience and we

teachers act as facilitators in this process.

Considering the theoretical principles of constructivism and the main goal of my

pedagogical intervention, in this research project, curriculum is seen as praxis. According

to Grundy (1987), in this approach the curriculum itself is developed through the dynamic

interaction of action and reflection. That is, the curriculum is not simply a set of plans to be

implemented, but rather is constituted through an active process in which planning, acting

and evaluating are all reciprocally related and integrated into the process. The central

concern of the curriculum as praxis is learning, not teaching, consequently, the focus of the

learning process is on the students and the social practices they are involved in. It is

through those social practices that meaning is constructed (Grundy, 1987) this vision of

curriculum is related with the theoretical principles of the constructivism theory, since both

are focused on learning as an active process that is developed through social interaction.


Vision of Language

Having a clear definition about what language is, what theories of learning underpin

our teaching practices, and what our vision of language is, allows language teachers to

organize the way we are going to teach and establish the goals we want to achieve.

Connected to the vision of curriculum, the vision of language in this research

project is language as tool for interaction and communication. As Nunan (1999) states,

language is a mean of expression, through language humans beings interact, express

opinions, culture, perspectives, points of view, etc. It is only through language that we can

communicate with each other, share our ideas, narrate our experiences, express our wishes,

needs, solve difficult problems, and communicate in the workplace and across cultures with

people from other countries. The learning activities carried out in the pedagogical

implementation were designed to encourage students´ oral interaction and to give them the

opportunity to use the target language to share experiences, express their emotions, describe

situations, work in group, make decisions, etc.

Vision of learning

The perspective of learning in this research project is learning as a process that

occurs through interaction. Ellis (1999) points out that interaction is a mutual activity,

which requires at least the participation of two persons and which causes reciprocal effect.

Second language development and interaction processes are closely associated. According

to Ellis (1999), second language learners are more likely to achieve better levels of

comprehension of the new input in their effort to communicate through interaction. In other


words, when students are engage in interaction, they have the opportunity to develop the

language skills.

In this research project, the learning activities were designed to encourage students’

interaction. During the development of the activities, students had the opportunity to work

in tasks in which they had to join efforts to achieve a common goal. Students participated

actively, using the target language to communicate and helping each other to transmit the

correct message and reach the proposed goal of the task.

Vision of technology

Bonk & Kim (Extending Sociocultural Theory to Adult Learning, 1998) states that

technology and computer mediated communication tools connects speakers from different

backgrounds and enables them to expand social interaction and language learning. In this

research project, technology is seen as medium to encourage interaction and develop

language learning. According to Kern (2006) technology as medium provides sites for

interpersonal communication, multimedia publication, distance learning, community

participation and identity formation. During the development of the learning activities,

technology was used as medium through which students used the target language to

communicate, interact and exchange knowledge to achieve a common goal.

The technological tool used to make possible students’ interaction was Blackboard

Collaborate. Through this tool, students interact synchronically in videoconferences and

instant message to develop the assigned tasks.


Task-based learning approach

The pedagogical implementation of this research project was designed based on

task-based learning approach. The term task has been defined by many scholars, for

instance, Long defines task as "a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others, freely

or for some reward. Therefore, examples of tasks include painting a fence, dressing a child,

filling out a form, buying a pair of shoes.... In other words, by 'task' is meant the hundred

and one things people do in everyday life, at work, at play, and in between" P. 74. On the

other hand, Willis (1996) defines task as an activity where the target language is used by

the learner for a communicative purpose in order to accomplish an outcome. Likewise,

Nunan (2006) states that task is a piece of classroom work that involves students in

comprehending, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is

focused on mobilizing their grammatical knowledge to express meaning, and in which the

intention is to convey meaning rather than to manipulate form.

According to Willis (1996), tasks should aim to motivate the students and engage

their attention. Tasks have to present a suitable degree of intellectual and linguistic

challenge, and promote students’ language development as efficiently as possible. It is

fundamental that tasks expose students to spontaneous language in appropriate

circumstances, and allow them to use it.

Willis (1996) proposed six types of tasks:

1.! Listing: These tasks tend to generate a lot of talk since students explain their ideas.

The processes involved are brainstorming and fact-finding. The expected outcome

could be a completed list or draft mind map.

2.! Ordering and sorting: Generally, these types of tasks might foster comprehension,

logic and reasoning ability. It involves four main processes: sequencing,


categorizing, ranking and classifying. The expected outcome is a set of information

ordered and sorted according to specific criteria.

3.! Comparing: This type of task develops students' ability of differentiation. The

activities are focused on comparing information to identify common points and/or

differences. The processes involved are matching, finding similarities, or

differences. The expected outcome would be appropriately matched or assembled

items.

4.! Problem solving: These tasks help to foster students' reasoning and decision-making

abilities. The activities could include examining real situations, reasoning, and

decision-making. The outcome involves solutions to the problem, which can then be

evaluated.

5.! Sharing personal experiences: These tasks encourage students to talk more freely

about themselves and exchange their experiences. The resulting interaction is closer

to casual social conversations. The activities could be narrating, describing,

exploring and explaining attitudes, opinions, and reactions.

6.! Creative tasks: These kinds of tasks involve pair or group of students in freer

creative work. They can involve combination of task types: listing, ordering and

sorting, comparing and problem solving. The expected outcome is a final product

that can be appreciated by a wider audience. Students cultivate their comprehensive

problem-solving abilities as well as their reasoning and analyzing abilities.

In this research project, the implemented activities were mostly sharing personal

experience, and ordering and sorting tasks. In sharing personal experience tasks, students

talked spontaneously about themselves and exchanged their experiences. In ordering and


sorting tasks, students worked in groups to organize information and then present a final

work. According to Willis (1996), doing tasks in pairs or in groups has advantages such as:

•! It gives students confidence to try out whatever language they know, or think they

know, in the relative privacy of a pair or small group, without fear of being wrong or of

being corrected in front of the class.

•! It gives students experience of spontaneous interaction, which involves composing

what they want to say in real time, formulating phrases and units of meaning, while

listening to what is being said.

•! It gives learners a chance to benefit from noticing how others express similar

meanings.

•! It gives all students chances to practice negotiating turns to speak, initiating as well

as responding to questions and reacting to others’ contributions.

•! It engages students in using language purposefully and co-operatively,

concentrating on building meaning, and not just using the language for display purposes.

•! It makes students participate in a complete interaction, not just one-off sentences.

Negotiating openings and closings, new stages or changes of direction are their

responsibility. It is likely that discourse skills such these can only be acquired through

interaction.

•! It gives students more chances to try out communication strategies like checking

understanding, paraphrasing to get around an unknown word, reformulating other

people’s ideas, and supplying words and phrases for other speakers.


•! It helps students gradually gain confidence as they realize they can rely on co-

operation with their partners to achieve the goals of the tasks mainly through the use of

the target language.

When students work in groups, the main function of the teacher in task-based

learning lessons is to facilitate the conditions for the development of the tasks. Lea et al.

(2003) points out that when students work in groups, the teacher is generally a facilitator,

always keeping the key conditions for learning in mind. Facilitating learning involves

balancing the amount of exposure and use of language, and ensuring they are both of

suitable quality. Nunan (2006) points out that pedagogically, task-based language teaching

has reinforced the following principles and practices:

•! A needs-based approach to content selection.

•! An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language.

•! The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.

•! The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language, but also

on the learning process itself.

•! An enhancement of the learner’s own personal experiences as important

contributing elements to classroom learning.

•! The linking of classroom language learning with language use outside the

classroom.

Task-based learning is not just about getting students to do one task and then

another task and then another. For the task to promote constant learning and improvement,

teachers should see it as just one component in a larger framework. According to Ellis


(2006), the framework consists of three phases: pre-task, task cycle and language focus.

Nunan (1991) defines five characteristics of task-based learning approach:

1.! An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language.

2.! The introduction of authentic materials into the learning situation.

3.! The provision of opportunities for learners to focus not only on language, but also

on the learning process itself.

4.! An enhancement of the learner’s own personal experience es as important

contributing elements to classroom learning.

5.! An attempt to link classroom, language learning with language activation outside

the classroom.

All these characteristics were taking into consideration when I was designing the

tasks, I always kept in my mind that students had to work on tasks that encouraged them to

interact with their classmates and use the target language orally.

Activities

The pedagogical implementation was organized in six learning tasks which had the

following pedagogical objectives:

•! To promote interaction through oral learning activities

•! To develop students’ abilities to work in group within an EFL virtual learning

environment.

•! To offer spaces where students can interact and develop their oral language skills.

The six activities were complementary tasks that students developed side by side

with the content of the online course. Before the participation in the videoconferences,


students had to develop grammar, listening, vocabulary and pronunciation exercises in the

software offered by SENA’s English virtual course which were fundamental to prepare the

students to participate in the videoconferences. As I knew, the content of the course and the

topics students had studied during the week. The videoconferences always started with

exercises or games that helped students to recall and reinforce what they had learn in the

software, once students developed these exercises and clarify their doubts, I explained the

task they have to accomplish and gave them useful tips to develop the task successfully.

(See the tasks in appendix F)

The types of tasks that students developed were:

1.! Sharing personal experiences: Narrating, describing, exploring and explaining

attitudes, opinions, reactions.

2.! Ordering and sorting: Information ordered and sorted according to a specific criteria

3.! Creative task: Creation of a product according to be exposed in public.

These types of tasks were designed taking into consideration the types of tasks

proposed by Willis (1996). The tasks were developed during six weeks in which students

participated in six oral learning sessions which are deeply described in the following table.


Table 1. Pedagogical implementation

Pedagogical Implementation

Date Topics Types of tasks Phases

Learning objectives Activities

First week

Let’s know each other

Sharing personal

experiences

Pre-task To know your classmates To identify similarities and differences in the group. To express likes & dislikes.

Participation in the forum: Students participate in the forum: Introducing yourself

Task

Introduce yourself: Students share information about themselves through the game: talk about yourself. Students choose a card-number with a question and ask one of his/her partner the question.

Language focus

Greetings & introductions Wh questions

Likes & dislikes

Second week Daily Routine

Ordering and sorting

Pre-task To talk about daily routine and free time activities To ask and answer simple questions. To use time expressions and frequency adverbs.

Daily routine vocabulary: Students participate in a game in which they review and practice time expressions and frequency adverbs

Task John’s daily routine: students work in group and exchange information about John has to organize John’s daily routine.

Language focus

Simple present

Wh questions

Frequency adverbs



Third week

Sharing my own

daily routine

Creative task/

Sharing personal

experiences

Pre-task

To use simple present to talk about everyday activities.

Creating a voki: Students create a voki in which they talk about their daily routine and post it in the forum.

Listening to my classmates’ voki: Students listen to three of the voki posted in the forum and prepare questions about their classmates’ daily routine.

Task

Talking about my daily routine: Students ask questions to their classmates about his/her daily routine. Students talk about the common things they found in their daily routines.

Language focus

Simple present Wh questions Frequency adverbs

Fourth week Family members

Ordering and sorting

Pre-task

To use vocabulary relates to family members and relationships among them.

Family tree vocabulary: Students complete crosswords about family members in these websites:

http://cerquella.com/bilingual/deploy/Unit2/vocabulary_1.html

http://www.wikisaber.es/Contenidos/LObjects/bb1/index.html?b

Task

Jack’s family tree students work in-group and exchange information about Jack’s family members and their occupations to organize Jack’s family tree.



Language focus

Family members Jobs and occupations

Fifth week My

family tree

Creative task/Sharing

personal experiences

Pre-task

To use vocabulary relates to family members. To use vocabulary relates jobs and occupations.

Family tree: Students create their own family tree and post it in the family information forum.

Students read the family tree of their classmates and prepare questions that they would like to know about their classmates’ family.

Task Sharing my family tree: Students talk about their family tree and their partners ask questions about the members of the family.

Language focus

Family members Jobs and occupations

Sixth week Talking about

Friends

Sharing personal

experiences

Pre-task

To use appearance and personality adjectives to describe people.

Participation in the forum: Students participate in the forum: talking about my best friend

Watching the video: Students watch this video: How can you be a good friend? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38Sxy5hrej0

Task

Talking about my best friend: Students share their opinion about the video Students discuss about the characteristics a good friend should have

Language Adjectives


Pedagogical Implementation focus

Promoting oral interaction through task-based learning activities in an EFL virtual learning environment. 61

Chapter 5.! Data Analysis and findings

Along this chapter, I am going to present in detail the process I followed to reduce and to

code the data. I also present the categories and subcategories that arose during the data analysis

procedure along with the findings and conclusions revealed in the analysis of the data.

Data analysis approach

As I mentioned in the former chapters the main objectives of this research are to

characterize the oral interaction in an EFL virtual learning environment and also present the

impact of the oral interaction on the students. Therefore, the sources of data of this research study

were audio recordings extracted from oral learning activities and semi- structured interviews in

which students expressed their opinion about their experience in the synchronous virtual

interaction. It was also taken as a source of data some field notes that I took while the

synchronous virtual interaction was carried out.

The data analysis of this study was based on the grounded theory approach. According to

Charmaz (2006), the first step in grounded theory is the data collection. In this case, the data was

collected from the transcription of audio recordings, students’ interviews and the fieldnotes I

took during the synchronous oral interaction through which, I start the first step of the analysis of

the data: initial coding, in this step, I labeled the data to make comparison, define ideas and

categories.


Data analysis procedure

The structure of the data analysis was constructed by gathering audio recording, obtained

from the interactions carried out during nine on-line sessions, a couple of interviews I made to

the in which they expressed their opinion about their participations in the synchronous online

interaction and some field notes I took while students participated in the online interaction. All

online interactions were transcribed into Excel files (see appendix G) and turns were numbered

creating nine documents that I labeled with the number of the session and the name of the task

(e.g. session No 1/ Introducing yourself). The interviews were carried out through Blackboard

Collaborate and organized in Word files (see appendix E) the questions of the interview were

made in Spanish to facilitate students’ answers. The field notes were taken in Word files which I

labeled with the number, the name and the date of the online session (see appendix D). I saved

and organized all these files in a folder, and then I started to analyze it.

The first step to start analyzing the data was open coding. As Creswell (1998) states, open

coding consists on labeling concepts, defining and developing categories based on their

properties and dimensions. In this first step, I went through the data, marked sections in which I

identified patterns of interaction and coded it with words that reflected the actions carried out

during the online interaction.

After completing open coding, I continue with the second step, which was axial coding.

The purposes of axial coding are to sort, synthesize, and organize large amounts of data and

reassembling them in new ways after open coding (Creswell, 1998). In this step, I analyzed the

codes to find connections and grouped them into categories and sub categories based on their

common properties.


Findings

This research intended to identify the main characteristics of interaction carried out in an

EFL virtual learning environment mediated by TBL and to determine students’ views and

insights about their participation in oral learning activities through a virtual platform. In regards

to the first objective, the data let to synthesize the findings into one main category that is called:

Collaboration, engagement in conversation and social presence: A progressive transformation. In

connection to the second objective, a second category has been identified and it has been labeled:

Sharing and strengthening knowledge of the language a way to consolidate an online learning

community.

Collaboration, engagement in conversation and social presence: A progressive

transformation

This name has been assigned to indicate that as students participated in the oral learning

activities proposed in the virtual environment, their interaction was characterized by

manifestation of collaboration, motivation to engage in the interaction and by the

acknowledgment of the presence of their classmates. These characteristics were more evident as

students overcame their shyness, became familiar with the platform and gained confidence not

only in the use of the tool itself, but also in the use of the target language. Next, I will explain

each of these characteristics illustrated with samples from the data

Before describing the main features of collaboration, it is important to mention that at the

beginning of the pedagogical intervention, the interaction was centered on the teacher. In the two

first online sessions students depended on the teacher to participate in the activities and most of

the interaction was driven by the teacher. While the oral learning tasks were developed, I

moderated the interaction through questions and nomination of the students to encourage them to


participate actively in the task. The questions I formulated were aimed to engage the students in

the activities, stimulate them to use the target language orally, and to get them to review and

practice previously learnt materials. This can be seen in the following excerpt:

45! T: Ok, perfect! C, can you give a number from 1 to 16? 46. C: 9

47.! T: ok, card 9 says: talk about the place where you live 48.!C: I live in Bosa, in Bogotá 49.!M: Teacher, que significa esa pregunta 50.!C: Donde vivo, donde vive usted 51.!T: good C! Now, can you describe your place? 52.!C: Excuse me 53.!T: Ok, can you describe your place? I mean, describe your house, your apartment 54.!C: Hablo sobre donde yo vivo 55.!T: yes, what you can tell us about your place? 56.!C: In my house, there is one bathroom, one mmm… kitchen, two bedrooms mmm… 57.!T: ok, what else do you have in your house, do you have living room? 58.!C: yes teacher 59.!T: And what do you have in your living room? 60.!C: tv, table… mmm profe, cómo digo mueble? 61.!T: Sofa 62.!C: a sofa and a DVD player 63.!T: ok, very good C! 64.!M: Teacher, puedo describir por ejemplo mi casa 65.!T: yes! 66.!M: Entonces digo, I love my house, there is bathroom, two bedrooms, there is kitchen,

there is living room and there is garden 67.!T: Very good! I liked it

Excerpt 1: 06/03/2014

This excerpt was taken from the first online session and I could perceive that students were

scared of using the target language and they were also shy to participate in the task. Taking into

consideration the situation, I started to get involved in the activity, and assumed the moderator

role to guide and encourage the students to participate actively in the task. In the question posed

in the line 45, I nominated a student to involve him in the activity. Once the students started to

participate, I continued asking questions (Lines 47, 51, 53, 55, 57, and 59). My objective was to

stimulate and engage students in the task to lead them to interact and encourage their thinking


and learning. As it can be seen in line 64 my intervention as moderator worked out, student M not

only nominated herself to participate in the activity, but also gave an expanded answer and used

the language confidently. This confirms what Kissock and Lyortsuun (1982) point out about

questioning . They state that teacher questions are fundamental to stimulate, transfer and guide

reflection processes of the students, and help them to recall what they have learnt. In this case,

the questions I posed were fundamental to engage the students in the activity and get them to

review and practice the language. As I registered in one of my field notes.

Field note 1, (06/03/2014)

During this week, the students have been studying the use of there is and there are I

noticed they used this structure frequently and applied it correctly.

Nominating students and questioning were effective strategies not only to involve the

students in the activities, but also to stimulate interaction among them. As it is shown in the

following excerpt, from line 151 onward, one of the students took part on the conversation

spontaneously to make her classmate know that they have a common interest. These evidences

confirms what was suggested by Ur´s (2000) the teacher asking questions serves purposes such as

letting learners present their ideas, test their understanding of knowledge or skills, engage them

actively in participating in learning and stimulate their thinking.

In the excerpt can be also seen that while I applied strategies such as posing questions and

nominating students to stimulate oral interaction. Students used their own strategies in order to

maintain the conversation.

137. T: M, give a number 138. M. mmmm… 14 139. T: 14, ok, you already chose 14, ¿right? 140. M: Si sra 141. T: so, another number 142. M: 4


143. T: card 4 says: Talk about your favorite singer 144. M: qué es singer? 145. C: cantante 146. T: Very good! 147. M: my favorite singer is Adele and Andrés Cepeda 148. T: Andrés Cepeda? He is great, what songs of him do you like? 149. M: mmmm tengo ganas, lo mejor que hay en mi vida y voy a extrañarte 149. T: What about Adele, what songs of her do you like? 150. M: Adele… one and only, mmm… don’t you remember and… 151: L: Teacher? 152: T: yes 153: L: I like Adele too 154: T: That’s great! So you have something in common with M. What songs of Adele do you like?

155: L: Many songs: someone like you, sky fall, don’t you remember, someone like you

156: M: Esa también me gusta… someone like you 157: T: That’s great! Can you both sing that song? 158: M: what? 159: L: que si podemos cantar 160: M: nooo, teacher! 161: Everybody: Laughter

Excerpt 2: 06/03/2014

It is noticeable that students used strategies such as, expression of hesitation and pause to

gain time, and they also used their mother tongue as a way to surpass oral difficulties or the lack

of repertoire. Students applied these strategies as valuable resources to keep the conversation up.

This show students´ desire to continue in the interaction and do not break the oral

communication.

It is important to highlight that my intervention and the application of prompting

strategies were needed while the students know each other, learn how to manage the tool and

got familiar with the activities. As I gradually remove my participation in the oral learning

activities, features of collaboration, engagement and social presence emerged spontaneously

in the oral interaction.


Collaboration

Once the students became familiar with both, their classmates and the dynamic of the

tasks, characteristics of collaboration came out in the online learning environment. Srinivas

(2011) points out that collaboration is as an educational approach to teaching and learning that

involves group of students working together to solve a problem, complete a task or create a

product. According to Pallof and Pratt (1999), collaboration fosters support in learning between

the members of group while promoting creativity and critical thinking. Collaborative learning

activities are fundamental to encourage co-construction of knowledge and to develop social

skills.

Collaboration in the online sessions was evident when the students answered a question to

help a partner to get the correct answer and/or to give continuity to the task. Frequently, the

students began a conversation by using the structures required in the lessons, for example using

wh questions structures. Some other times, they repeated the content of an answer with an

emphasis on their tone of voice to ensure comprehension. As the following excerpt shows, while

the students were developing the assigned activities, they helped each other to achieve the goal.

116. S2:ok. S1 when does John phone his mother? 117. S1: John phones his mother at ten minutes past nine 118. S2: what? 119. S3: nine ten 120. S2: nine ten? 120. S3: yes 121. S2: oh right, oh right… thank you 122. S3: you are welcome… a la orden Excerpt 3: 13/03/2014

Excerpt 3 illustrates that even though student 2 (line 116) asks the question to student 1,

in the line 119 it can be observed that the student 3 takes part in the conversation and

reformulates the given response to help her classmate to get the correct answer. This sign of


solidarity shows that students were building an online learning community through the online

interaction. According to Preece (2000), a learning collaboration environment facilitates the

foundation of an online learning community; it brings students together to support the learning of

each member of the group while promoting creativity and critical thinking.

Similar characteristics can be seen in the following excerpt which was taking from session

four. It is evident that there is a progress in the type of exchanges among students. They began to

provide descriptions to guide their partners, which included more details from the information

they had in the tasks (Excerpt 4, lines 134 and 140). They used statements by which they wanted

to ensure their partners had the indispensable information to complete an activity. They addressed

their comments using the pronoun “you” (Lines 134 and 136) to personalize the comments and

they began to show more precision for requesting information (lines 138 and 139. In this activity,

the students had to work together and exchanged information to complete a family tree.

128. J: who is Mary? 129. M: Mary, Mary, Mary is Jack’s mother in law and she is a teacher 130. J: give me a moment please 131. M: ok 132. T: Jairo, what other information do you need? 133. J: I need information about Mary 134. M: Mary is Jack’s mother in law and she is a teacher… For the picture, you can see her next to the man with glasses 135. J: ok, ok mate 136. M: so you already have all names 137. J: no mate, I need some names 138. M: I need some names too, I am confused… give a second, but what information do you need? 139. J: who is Sue? 140. M: Ok. Sue is Jack’s cousin, she is a professional bowler. The girl who has ball … now, tell me who is John? Excerpt 4: 25/03/2014

In this session, I could identify that the oral interaction came out freely. In addition, I also

noticed that students used the target language more confidently. As it can be seen in line 134 and

140, students used the target language to describe and give details that allowed their partners to


obtain the correct answer and complete the assigned task. This on line interaction was an

opportunity for students to practice what they had learnt and establish social relationship which

was evident in the kind of friendly expressions such as mate (Line 135 and 137) that they used

during the interaction. At this point of the synchronic online interaction, students had increased

their abilities not only in regards to language, but also their abilities to socialize with their

partners. It also can be noticed that the students were more independent and my intervention in

their interaction was less than in the former online sessions. As Bransford, Brown, & Cocking

(2000) state as the student’s knowledge and learning competency improves, the educator

progressively reduces the supports provided.

Engagement

Engagement was another of the characteristics that emerged during the online interaction.

Students showed high interest to learn and to accomplish the task successfully. Student

engagement refers to students’ willingness, need, desire and compulsion to participate in, and be

successful in the learning process (Bomia et al, 1997). During the online sessions, students took

an active role, initiating actions when they had the opportunity, showing interest in participating

in the activities through strategies such as questioning, self-nomination and encouraging active

participation among themselves. In these online exchanges, students were willing to interact and

participate freely in the class. It seems that they overcame their fears to use the language orally

and to exchange information with their partners.

95. C: What time John takes lunch? 96. L: John has lunch in his office at 2:00 o'clock, quiero decir at 12:00 oćlock 97. T: Good! 98. C: a las 12 en punto? 99. J and L: yes 100. C: thank you


101. J: your welcome 102. C: next question please 103. L: M? 104. M: que 105. L: nos puedes hacer la pregunta? 106. J: pregunta please 107. C: nos toca preguntar a nosotros? 108. J: yes 109. C: what time John go home? 110. L: John goes home… Excerpt 5: 13/03/2014 Through requirements and questions (lines 102, 103, 105 and 106), the students show

interest in accomplishing the required activity. They also showed a positive and kind attitude,

which was evident in the use of kind expressions such as thank you and other reinforcing

expressions, which indicated that they were pleased while developing the oral learning activities.

117. S1: John phones his mother at ten minutes past night 118. S2: what? 119. S3: nine ten 120. S2: nine ten? 121. S3: yes 122. S1: ten minutes past nine 123. S2: oh right, oh right… thank you 124. S1: you’re welcome… a la orden 125. S1: no hay teacher… 126. S2: S3 next question please 127. S3: wait… when does John have a break? 128. S2: break? 129. S1: a bath 130. S3: eso, eso 131. S2: yo estaba buscando la respuesta… risas… John has a bath at… uy profe cómo se dice 9:45? 132. S3: nine forty five 133. S2: oh right, that’s correct S3 134. S1: risas… a qué horas lo toma? 135. S3: nine forty five… the other, the other, the other question please 136. S2: ok, ok… When does John read a book? 137. S3: ok read a book… John reads a book ten thirty 138. S2: thirty? 139. S3: siii 140. S2: thirty? 141. S3: thirty, is correct


142. S2: ok, thank you… ok S3 when does John… ay no ya se me acabaron las preguntas 143. S3: no, go to bed 144. S2: no, is your turn, te toca a ti 145. S3: oh yes, it’s correct… when does John go to bed? 146. S2: at 10:45 Excerpt 8:13/03/2014

In the excerpt eight, it is shown that despite the absent of the teacher, the students

continue with the assigned activity. Due technical problem, the teacher was not present during the

whole on line sessions, and this was not an obstacle to complete the task. They guided each other

assigning turns, making questions, making corrections to clarifying and responding the posed

questions to help their partners have the necessary information to do the task. This active and

collaborative environment presented in the excerpt eight, shows that students were not only

engaged in the activities, but also have reached the self-regulation stage mentioned by Bransford,

Brown, & Cocking (2000). They point out that in the self-regulation stage, students are able to

work in their own and complete tasks without any support.

Social presence

According to Gunawardena (1995), the degree to which a person is perceived as real in a

communication that is conducted with some form of media is known as social presence. Pallof

and Pratt (1999) point out that the use of personal forms of address, acknowledgment of others,

continuation of threads, expressions of feeling, humor and social sharing are indicators that social

presence has emerged in an online class. These indicators coincide with the ones given during the

online sessions. As the following excerpts illustrate, students joked, used expressions of

friendships, and showed feeling of excitement.

Excerpt 9: 13/03/2014

96. S2: S3, when does John go shopping?


97. S3: John goes shopping seven thirty … profe a ud no le parece que yo hablo británico? (laughter)… yo hablo inglés británico (laughter) Everybody: laughter… 98. S3: o dime si no, por lo menos los números si? 99. T: británico santandereano si… pero bueno 100. S2: mezcladito profe… (laughter), next question please

As students got familiar among themselves, they started to make funny comments, which

triggered laugh and made the learning environment more enjoyable and relaxing. These

expressions of humor indicated that the students felt connected with their partners, the oral

learning session was a way to make students aware that they were part of a learning community

in which they can share knowledge, express themselves as human beings and develop social

skills.

Expressions of appreciation and excitement also came out during the online sessions.

Students project themselves socially and emotionally through enjoyment, happiness and gratitude

words. This expression of emotions shows that students feel in a comfortable and familiar

environment in which they can express emotions and feelings.

Excerpt 10:13/03/2014 103. C: what time John go home? 104. L: John goes home… 105. J: at 6:15 106. L: a quarter past six 107. J: at 6:15 108. C: me pueden repetir 109. J: John goes home at 6:15 110. C: a las 6:15? 111. J: yes, correcto 112. T: muy bien! 113. J: ay ya aprendí yujuuu 114. Everybody: laughter

Excerpt 11 25/03/2014 299. T: Ok, now you did it, very good! 300. J and M: Thank you teacher 301. T: ok, thank you for participating in the activity, have a good night 302. J: M thank you teacher 303. M: Vacan un gusto trabajar 304. J: same, good night 305. M: good night 306. 307. T: Good night!

The enjoyment reaction presented in line113 (Excerpt 10) and feeling of gratitude show in

line 303 (Excerpt 11) indicate although students were in an online learning environment in which


they did not have physical contact, they felt part of a group in which they not only could learn,

but also expressed their emotions as real people. These patterns of social presence are essential to

create a successful learning environment. According to Palloff and Pratt (1999) elements of

social presence and collaboration interact jointly to make the online learning process a

successfully experience.

As the data have showed, the synchronous oral interaction was an opportunity to foster

collaboration, engage the students in the learning activity and showed that despite the physical

distance that an online learning environment implies, students can establish partnership, express

emotions and work jointly to accomplish tasks successfully. As it will be showed in the

following section, the features of collaboration, the engagement in the activities and the

characteristics of social presence presented in this category were perceived for the students as

opportunities to share and strength their knowledge of the language and feel part of a learning

community.

Sharing and strengthening knowledge of the language a way to consolidate an online

learning community.

The name of this category was assigned taking into consideration students’ perceptions in

regards to their participation in the online interaction. According to the students’ responses, the

oral online interaction group was an opportunity to gain skills to use the language better, share

ideas with the group, speak and listen to each other, clarify doubts and make corrections among

themselves. As the following excerpt shows, students also perceived the oral online interaction as

an opportunity to feel part of a group in which they could participate freely and help each other

while learning.


“The activities allowed knowing and strengthening our vocabulary in a

language, which is the most important now. We felt confident to speak

because we were in people who knew and thus lost the fear to express or

ask.” (Interview, student 1, March 2014)

An important aspect to highlight in the answer is, that even though the interview was

individual, this student is expressing his opinion in plural “We felt” which indicate he felt part of

a group. Moreover, in the answer is evident that the student felt in a helpful environment in

which he could express and ask questions without fear. I think, the perception of this student is

related to the collaborative environment presented in the first category. As it was shown in the

data, the oral online interaction was characterized by a supportive environment in which students

help each other to achieve a common goal, which was in this case, complete an assigned task.

The aforementioned characteristics are associated with the concept of community stated

by Shafer and Anundsen (1993). They point out that a community is a dynamic whole that arises

when a group of people share common practices, are interdependent, make decisions together and

work for well-being of the group. In this case, students worked together, support each other to

advance in the learning process.

In the students’ responses was also noticeable that they had positive feelings such as self-

confidence and sense of belonging to a community.

Ï learned unknown words and some grammatical structures, also to lose my

fear of speaking and make mistakes; with virtual classes and the teacher´s

support we are all learning and knowledge grows¨ (Interview student 1,

March 2014)


As it can be seen in the previous answer, the student is also expressing his point of view

in plural “we are all learning.” The student is also expressing self-confidence to communicate

which indicate he felt in a supportive environment in which he could express their ideas without

fear. This confirm what Peterson (2012) found in his research study. According to his findings,

synchronous interaction is helpful for students in creating a sense of belonging in a social

learning community and is characterized by the use of strategies, which promoted the

development of the target language and a supportive atmosphere.

As the following answers show, students recognized the synchronic online interaction as

an opportunity to apply their knowledge, and as a valuable opportunity to fulfill the necessity

they have in regards to the development of oral language skills.

“The activities were interesting because we could ask the other group and

practiced speaking and listening” (Interview, student 6, March 2014)

Ït was a pleasant experience because I get the point that only speak English

and that is what we really need¨ (Interview student 5, April 2014)

These students’ responses validate what Wu et al (2011) found in their research study.

They showed the beneficial changes in motivation, confidence, and improvements in English

spoken abilities that are prompted through synchronic interaction in online learning

environments. The study also revealed that even a small amount of spoken interaction in English

made students more comfortable in applying their skills and more confident in what they had

learned.


The exchanging of knowledge expressed in the following answer indicates that the

collaborative environment analyzed in the first category was also perceived by students.

“Through the activities we interacted with others in virtual classrooms, we

learned from them and vice versa, considering that everyone learns at

his/her own pace.” (Interview student 5, March 2014)

The patterns of collaboration are especially evident when she points out “we

learned from them and vice versa.” This co-construction of knowledge is only

possible when students work collaboratively.

Another important point to emphasize in the previous answer is the statement

“considering that everyone learns at his/her own pace.” This shows that the oral online interaction

was valuable to develop students’ social skills such as, tolerance and acceptance of differences.

As the next answers illustrate, students assigned a high value to the activities in which

they exchange personal information.

The most interesting part is the development of activities and sharing them

with our partners, for example, when we share our family trees, we not only

know vocabulary, also a bit of each of us of the great family we have and are

surrounded by. (Interview, student 1, March 2014)

The most important part was when we took part in the activities sharing some

personal information with our partners. (Interview, student 3, March 2014)

Students underlined as important and interesting points the fact of sharing personal

information. These students’ appreciations reflect a positive reaction when they share a bit of

them. This positive feeling in regards to synchronous oral interaction can be added to the self –


confidence and the sense of belonging that I described previously and also can be understood as

essential foundations to strength relationship to consolidate a learning community.

In general, students´ responses indicate that the direct contact with their classmates made

students realized that they were in a learning process in which they were constructing knowledge

together. The oral interaction also was an opportunity to overcome anxiety to use the language

orally, the fact that students became aware that they all were part of a learning group made them

use the language orally spontaneously.


Chapter 6.! Conclusions

The work sought to identify the main characteristics of the oral interaction carried out in

an EFL virtual learning environment implement task-based learning activities to encourage

interaction among students. According to the obtained results, collaboration and engagement

increased as the process was moving forward, given that students acquired confidence regarding

their abilities not only in regards to language itself, but also their social skills. This finding

confirms that the use of a learning environment that employs a virtual tool similar to the one used

in the learning activities, can promote oral interaction, enhancing performance that students

develop when they study in conventional learning environments. Additionally, it was confirmed

what Vygotsky (1978) proposed in the sense that communication and interaction have a

considerable influence on the development of the learning processes.

The interest of students to achieve individual performance suitable for video

conferencing, contributes to the process of meaningful learning, therefore they make greater

efforts to improve the use of English language and the development of the social skills.

In terms of collaboration, the results showed that the opportunity to participate and

develop learning activities in this type of learning environment makes students bring to their

partners some knowledge they have individually and that helped to improve the performance of

the group during the activities; some students corrected mistakes made by their partners or

answered their questions, with the purpose that the video conference can move forward. This

process made me reduce the level of intervention in the online sessions as suggested by

Bransford et al (2000) As the student’s knowledge and learning competency improves, the

educator progressively reduces the supports provided


The observed attitude of students in the learning environment was positive and friendly,

that they showed the satisfaction felt by participating in the activity. This was accomplished even

in the moments in which the teacher was no present, which means that the students become the

real protagonists of the process and reduces the need for supervision. The learning environment

used in this way contributed to improve the communication skills of students, as suggested by

Brown (1994), as these skills are essential for students to share their experiences and knowledge.

As regards the social presence, students showed expressions of familiarity and trust

among them, which implies a higher level of partnership among them. Additionally, the learning

environment allowed a high degree of involvement of students as part of a group that helps them

build knowledge. They felt that they could express their ideas without fear to make mistakes, so

they become active members of a learning community, which was possible thanks to the online

environment. Finally, oral interaction helps build a vocabulary, overcoming students’ anxiety

with the use of oral language. The exercise led to the classroom environment became more

comfortable and friendly, given that, as suggested by Sullivan (2000), was maximized the

opportunity for each student to speak and reduce their difficulties in performing in public.

Additionally, students made concessions and negotiations between them as posed by Doughty

and Pica (1986), because in that way they could maximize the time available and reduce the

effort required to complete the assigned activities.

Oral interaction became the basic instrument of communication between students,

coinciding with what Kellal (2006) points out. To the extent that when such communication took

place, the classroom became not only a place of learning to become a stage for social interaction.


Pedagogical implications

The findings imply that there is a more natural way to learn different from lectures,

consisting in the realization of activities in which, through interaction and collaboration with

partners, they can fulfill the assigned activities. This option provides an opportunity especially

for those students who have a greater capacity to chat with the others, but at the same time can be

a distraction for students who like to work individually. While the interaction becomes an option

for the learning process, the learning process becomes an opportunity to improve the

communication and the social skills.

As a researcher teacher, I have observed a process of transformation and expansion of the

options that may help for the exercise of my professional activity. The interests and preferences

that students share among them makes it more natural to assume their individual shortcomings

without being exposed to the assessment that we teachers usually do when we play the role of

evaluator, while between partners there is no such fear. In this learning environment teachers

need no longer fulfill the role of being the most knowledgeable on the subject and instead we

must demonstrate our capabilities for guidance and leadership to ensure that students take the

control of their learning process

The findings of this research involve the opportunity and the responsibility of promoting

learning environments in which students have greater leadership and take a more active role.

These activities may also become a motivation for students to have greater interaction among

them, so it is expected not only to encourage the development of a specific knowledge, but it is

also possible develop social skills and a way to motivate students to achieve better performance;

in this way this learning environment can contribute to improve the overall performance of the

group.


This type of learning environments means having technological facilities that are more

favorable to promote interaction among students; this means that not necessarily they have to be

in a specific space where the teacher is speaking, instead they work in settle circles, or in more

open spaces where students feel free to express their thoughts and proposals. Also teachers

should be open to give the control of their classes to students, and to guide assertively the

development of activities to the extent to which students feel they have a greater degree of

control may also occur indiscipline or distracting situations that redirect the group's activity to

issues that have nothing to do with the assigned activity.

Limitations

During the development of this research project the limitations were specifically related

with technical issues and management of time. Some technical problems arose during the

development of the activities. During one of the sessions the activity took a lot time to load,

however the students waited patiently until the activity was ready to be developed. There were

also problems with the connectivity; one of the online sessions had to be postponed because

students could not connect.

An additional limitation was the management of time. In some occasions the

videoconferences took more time than planned for; there was one case in which was 10:00 p.m.

and we had not finished, the students were exhausted and they did not follow the final

instructions properly and I had to repeat once again. I would recommend organize the time and

schedule the videoconference as early as possible. I also would suggest pay special attention to

the concentration of the students. This kind of learning environments facilitate the lack of

concentration; there were a couple of occasions in which I had to call the attention of one of


students because he was playing video games while his partners participated in the development

of the assigned task.

Further research

Taking into account the pedagogical implications of this work, it is recommended to

investigate the effects that learning environment generated through video-conferencing can

produce in other areas of knowledge. For example, the creation of competitions between

educational institutions in areas such as mathematics, geography, physics, among others, using

this type of virtual tools, can generate an additional stimulus to the advantages in terms of

collaboration, the attitude and the sense of belonging to a learning community, and the

confidence felt by the students who participate in such activities. These results may be favored by

the interest of winning a competition, as here it is suggested to evaluate through future research.

Additionally, it is suggested to assess the use of this learning environment so that students

can interact with young people of the same age who speak target language and who live in other

countries. If students have this opportunity, it is possible that they increase their level of self-

confidence and be even more interested by the foreign language proficiency.

It is recommended to research on techniques through which teachers must be prepared to

assume the role of leader of the teaching process in this type of learning environments, and use

the tools offered by information and communication technologies for this purpose.


References

Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The Role of Design in Research: The Integrative Learning

Design Framework. Educational Researcher , 32 (1), 21-24.

Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for

practitioner. New York: Routledge.

Bygate, M. (2002). Speaking. In C. In C. Roland, & D. Nunan (Eds.), Teaching English to

speakers of other languages. Cambridge:: Cambridge University Press.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded theory: A Practical Guide Through

Qualitative Analysis (First ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design Choosing Among Five

Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ellis, R. (2006). The methodology of Task-based teaching. Pusan, Korea: Paper presented

at the 2006 Asian EFL Journal Conference.

Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher research: From inquiry to understanding. Detroit:

Heinle & Heinle.

Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow: Pearson

Education Ltd.

Nunan, D. (2006). Task-based language teaching in the Asia context: Defining ‘task’.

Asian EFL Journal , 8 (3), 12-18.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Thomson/Heinle.


Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curricumlum. Tesol Quarterly ,

25 (2), 279-295.

Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of

telecommunication. London: John Wiley & Sons.

Wagner, E. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American

Journal of Distance Education , 8 (2), 6-26.

Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, UK: Longman. Addison-

Wesley.

Kellal, N. (2006). La interacción oral alumno/alumno en clase de ELE: los retos

comunicacionales del trabajo en grupo. Mostaganem, Argelia: Centro Virtual Cervantes.

MCER. (2001). Marco común de referencia para las lenguas: aprendizaje, enseñanza y

evaluación. Retrieved mayo 28, 2015 from http://cvc.cervantes.es

Hernández, C. (2007). La interacción en la destreza oral. Logroño, España: Actas XVII

Congreso Internacional de ASELE.

Martínez, M. (2007). La interacción oral en la clase de ELE: algunas pistas para

practicar el español oral de forma sistemática, progresiva y evaluable. Inventario de ideas.

Madrid.

Goffman, E. (1971). Relaciones en público. Microestudios de orden público. Madrid:

Alianza.

Coulmas, F. (1981). Conversational routine. Explorations in standardized comunication

situations and prepatterned speech. Mouton: The Hague:.


Angelo, T. A. (1993). A Teacher's Dozen: Fourteen General, Research-based Principles

for Improving Higher Learning in Our Classrooms. AAHE Bulletin , 45 (8).

Bahrani, T. (2011). The Role of Technology in Language Learning. Canadian Social

Science , 7 (3), 114 - 118.

Bomia, L., Beluzo, L., Demeester, D., Elander, K., Johnson, M., & Sheldon, B. (1997).

The impact of teaching strategies on intrinsic motivation. Champaign, IL:: Clearinghouse on

Elementary and Early Childhood Education.

Bonk, C., & Kim, K. (1998). Extending Sociocultural Theory to Adult Learning. In C. M.

Smith, & T. Pourchot (Eds.), Adult Learning and Development: Perspectives from Educational

Psychology (pp. 67-88). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, and

Experience & School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Breen, L. (2007). The researcher ‘in the middle’: Negotiating the insider/outsider

dichotomy. The Australian Community Psychologist , 19 (1), 163-174.

Brock. (1986). The effects of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse. TESOL

Quarterly , 20 (1), 41-8.

Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey

Bass.

Brown, H. (1994). Teaching by Principles: Interactive Language Teaching Methodology.

New York: Prentice Hall Regents.

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.


Carreño, L. (2014, sept). Collaborating and interacting: Walking together towards our

learning community. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, [S.l.], v. 16, n. 2, p. 213-232.

Retrieved february 9, 2015 from http://dx.doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2014.2.a06

Chang, K., Chen, I., & Sung, Y. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to enhance text

comprehension and summarization. The Journal of Experimental Education , 71 (1), 5-23.

Corey, S. (1940). The teacher Out-talk the Pupils . School Review, 48 , 48 (52), 745.

Council of Europe. (2004). The common European framework of reference for languages:

learning, teaching, assessment. Retrieved october 5, 2013 from

http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Source/ Framework_EN.pdf

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg

(Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (pp. 1-19). Oxford:

Elsevier.

Doughty, C., & Pica, T. (1986). “Information gap” tasks: do they facilitate second

language acquisition? TESOL Quarterly , 20, 305-325.

Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition: learning in the classroom.

Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction. Amsterdam: John

Benjamin Publishing Company.

Flavell, J. (1963). The developmental Psychology of Jean Piaget. New York: Van

Nostrand.

Garrison, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based

environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The internet and the higher education ,

2 (3), 87-105.


Gillies, R. (2006). 22. Gillies, R. (2006). Teacher’s and students’ verbal behaviors during

cooperative and small-group learning. British Journal of educational Psychology , 76, 271-287.

Glasser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine .

Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or Praxis? Lewes: Falmer Press.

Gunawardena, C. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and

collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational

Telecommunications , 1 ((2/3)), 147-166.

Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2012). The use of videoconferencing to support multimodal

interaction in an online language classroom. European Association for Computer Assisted

Language Learning , 24 (2), 116-137.

Hargie, O., Saunders, C., & Dickson, D. (1981). Social skills in Interpersonal

Communication. London & Camberry: Croom Helm.

Hartman, H. (2002). Scaffolding & Cooperative Learning. Human Learning and

Instruction. New York: City College of City University of New York.

Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. (1995). Constructivism

and computer mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance

Education , 9, 7-25.

Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL

Quarterly , 40 (1), 183-210.

Kissock, C., & Lyortsuun, P. (1982). A guide to questioning: classroom procedures for

teachers. New York: MacMillan.


Lea, S. J., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher Education Students’ Attitudes to

Student-Centred Learning: Beyond ›Educational Bulimia. In: Studies in Higher Education, 28(3),

pp. 321–334. Studies in Higher Education , 28 (3), 321-334.

Lee, L. (2007). Fostering second language oral communication through constructivism

interaction in desktop videoconferencing. Foreign Language Annals , 40 (4), 635-649.

Long, M., & Sato, C. (1983). ‘Classroom foreigner talk discourse: forms and functions of

teachers’ questions’. (M. a. 35. Long, Ed.) H. Seliger and M. Long.

Long, M., Brock, C., Crookes, G., Deike, C., Potter, L., & Zhang, S. (1984). Effects of

teachers questioning patterns and wit-time on pupil participation in public high school classes in

Hawaii for students of limited English proficiency. Honolulu: Technical report No 1. University

of Hawaii at Manoa.

Maor, D., & Volet, S. (2007). Interactivity in professional online learning: A review of

research based studies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 23 (2), 269-290.

Maushak, N., & Ou, C. (2007). Using synchronic communication to facilitate graduate

students’ online collaboration. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education , 8 (2), 161-169.

McMahon, M. (1997). Social constructivism and the world wide web - A Paradigm for

learning. Paper presented at the ASCILITE conference. Perth, Australia. Retrieved 2014 from

http://www.curtin.edu.au/conference/ ASCILITE97/papers/ Mcmahon/Mcmahon

Ming, S., & Murugaiah, P. (2010). Development of interactive and reflective learning

among Malaysian online distant learners: An ESL instructor’s experience. International Review

of Research in Open and Distance Learning , 11 (3), 21-41.

Ochoa, M. (2010). How can English be taught fully online? The example of an

intermediate course in tourism. Teaching English with Technology–Developing Online Teaching

Skills Special Issue , 10 (2), 50-68.


Olson, J., & Platt, J. (2000). The Instructional Cycle. Teaching Children and Adolescents

with Special Need , Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 170-197.

Pallof, R., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass .

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Peterson, M. (2009). Learner interaction in synchronous CMC: a sociocultural

perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 22 (4), 303-321.

Piaget, J. (1973). Main Trends in Psychology. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Picciano, A. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: issues of interaction, presence, and

performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks , 6 (1), 21-40.

Polhemus, L., Shih, L., Swan, K., & Richardson, J. (2000). Building affective learning

community: social presence & learning engagement, Proceedings of WEBNET, 800-802.

Preece, J. (2000). Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability.

Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Raymond, E. (2000). Cognitive Characteristics. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon,

A Pearson Education Company.

Robinson, H. (1994). The Ethnography of Empowerment – the transformative power of

classroom interaction. London: Falmer Press.

Romaña, Y. (2015). Skype™ conference calls: A way to promote speaking skills in the

teaching and learning of English. PROFILE Issues in Teachers' Professional Development. ,

17(1), 143-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.15446/profile.v17n1.41856.


Romiszowski, A., & Mason, R. (2004). Computer-mediated communication. In D. H.

Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 397-

431). New York: Macmillan.

Rulon, K., & McCreary, J. (1986). Negotiation of content: teacher-fronted and small

group interaction. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language

acquisition (pp. 182-199). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Ryle, A., & Cumming, K. (2007). Reflection on engagement in online learning

communities. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning , 3 (3), 35-46.

Schegloff, E. (1992). On talk and its institutional occasion. In P. Drew, & J. Heritage

(Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Shaffer, C., & Anundsen, K. (1993). Creating Community Anywhere: Finding Support

and Connection in a Fragmented World. New York: Tarcher/Perigee.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: Learning theory for the digital age. International

Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning , 2 (1), Retrieved from

http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/index.htm.

Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and

interaction (2nd Ed. ed.). London: Sage.

Srinivas, H. (2011). What is Collaborative Learning? Kobe; Japan: Retrieved June 2014,

from: http://www.gdrc.org/kmgmt/c-learn/index.html.

Stewart, A., Harlow, D., & DeBacco, K. (2011). Students’ experience of synchronous

learning in distributed environments. Distance Education , 32 (3), 357-381.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory

procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.


Sullivan, P. (2000). Playfulness as Mediation Communicative Language Teaching in a

Vietnamese Classroom. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning, edited by James

P. Landtolf. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tu, C.-H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in

online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education , 106 (3), 131-150.

Ur, P. (2000). A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. Foreign Language

Teaching and Research Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The Development of Higher Psychological

Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the

second language classroom. CALICO Journal , 7 (25), 7-25.

Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (1999). From social interaction to individual

reasoning: An empirical investigation of a possible sociocultural model of cognitive

development. Learning and Instruction , 9, 493-516.

White, R. (1988). The ELT Curriculum. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wu, W., V, Y., & Marek, M. (2011). Using online EFL interaction to increase confidence,

motivation, and ability. Educational Technology & Society , 14 (3), 118-129.


APPENDICES


Appendix A: Students´ consent form

Bogotá D.C., Septiembre, 2013

Estimado Aprendiz,

Por medio de la presente, solicito su aprobación para participar en el estudio que llevaré a

cabo en el curso de inglés virtual que usted está tomando en el SENA.

El estudio se relaciona con el proceso de interacción virtual que se lleva a cabo en la

sesiones de Blackboard Collaborate, el objetivo primordial del estudio es identificar las

principales características de la interacción con el fin de mostrar la importancia de ofrecer

espacios donde los estudiantes de los curso virtuales puedan interactuar de manera sincrónica con

sus compañeros y con su profesor

Para desarrollar la investigación se usaran las grabaciones de las conversaciones llevadas

a cabo en las sesiones de Blackboard Collaborate. A usted no se le solicitará que haga

actividades que atenten contra su integridad personal.

Este estudio se usará para escribir un reporte para la Maestría de Lingüística Aplicada a la

Enseñanza del Inglés de la Universidad Francisco José de Caldas.

Con el fin de proteger su identidad e integridad, le garantizo que:

•! Su nombre será remplazado por un seudónimo

•! Las conversaciones serán utilizadas sólo con propósitos académicos

Es importante que tenga claro que el SENA tiene conocimiento acerca de este estudio y

ha dado la aprobación para la realización del mismo.

Le agradezco de antemano su apoyo y colaboración. Si usted tiene alguna pregunta acerca

del proyecto, no dude en contactarme.

Si está de dispuesto a participar en el estudio por favor complete el siguiente formato:

Cordialmente,



Formato de aprobación

Yo_____________________ deseo/no deseo (por favor elija una opción) participar en el

estudio que llevará a cabo la profesora Elizabeth Barraza Barrios, en el curso de inglés

virtual del SENA.

Entiendo que mi identidad se mantendrá protegida y que mis conversaciones serán

utilizadas solamente con propósitos académicos.

Nombre completo____________________

Firma_____________________________

Fecha_____________________________


Appendix B: Coordinator´s consent form

Bogotá D.C., septiembre, 2013 Coordinadora Luisa Juvinao Carbonó, Por medio de la presente, solicito su aprobación para realizar un estudio investigativo que

llevaré a cabo en el curso de inglés virtual que estoy orientando.

El estudio se relaciona con el proceso de interacción virtual que se lleva a cabo en la

sesiones de Blackboard Collaborate, el objetivo primordial del estudio es identificar las

principales características de la interacción con el fin de mostrar la importancia de ofrecer

espacios donde los estudiantes de los curso virtuales puedan interactuar de manera sincrónica con

sus compañeros y con su profesor.

Para desarrollar la investigación se usaran las grabaciones de las conversaciones llevadas

a cabo en las sesiones de Blackboard Collaborate. A los estudiantes no se les solicitará que

hagan actividades que atenten contra su integridad personal.

Este estudio se usará para escribir un reporte para la Maestría de Lingüística Aplicada a la

Enseñanza del Inglés de la Universidad Francisco José de Caldas.

Con el fin de proteger la identidad e integridad de los aprendices, le garantizo que:

•! Sus nombres serán remplazados por un seudónimo

•! Las conversaciones serán utilizadas sólo con propósitos académicos

Con el fin de proteger la identidad, confidencialidad y protección, me comprometo a:

•! Remplazar su nombre por un seudónimo

•! Utilizar sus conversaciones sólo con propósitos académicos

Es importante que tenga claro que he solicitado el consentimiento de los aprendices para

participar en el estudio.

Le agradezco de antemano su apoyo y colaboración. Si usted tiene alguna pregunta acerca

del proyecto, no dude en contactarme.

En caso de estar de aprobar mi solicitud, le agradezco completar el siguiente formato:

Cordialmente,



Formato de aprobación

Yo_______________________ en representación del SENA autorizo/no autorizo (por

favor elija una opción) la realización del estudio que llevará a cabo la profesora Elizabeth

Barraza Barrios, en el curso de inglés virtual del SENA.

Entiendo que mi identidad se mantendrá protegida y que mis conversaciones serán

utilizadas solamente con propósitos académicos.

Nombre completo____________________

Firma_____________________________

Fecha_____________________________

Promoting oral interaction through task-based learning activities in an EFL virtual learning environment.

97 Appendix C: Coding format

Number and date of the session Research question

Name of the activity Transcription Code


98 Appendix D: Sample of field notes

Session 2 : John´s daily routine March 13th 2014

Al comienzo de la actividad uno de los estudiantes estaba distraído jugando vídeo juegos y uno de sus compañeros lo llamo al orden, One of the Students was exciting and said: aprendí, aprendí eehhh! When I heard it, I felt really great. One of the groups didn’t copy the answers and when I asked to tell the daily routine they supposed to complete, they had to do the exercise again. At the end of the VC the student who was excited when he learnt how to say the time, and asked the date of the next VC, he showed interest; I noticed he looked forward to participate in the next VC


99 Appendix E: Sample of the interview to students

Interview with student 4: March 21st 2014

1.! Describe brevemente cómo ha sido tu experiencia en la participación en las videoconferencias.

Student 4: Mi experiencia en la videoconferencia ha sido muy agradable ya que interactué con mis compañeros de forma didáctica, obteniendo conocimientos en mi aprendizaje de forma activa, fue muy interesante ya que pude manejar el inglés de forma didáctica aprendiendo y viendo cuales eran mis dificultades.

2.! ¿Qué has aprendido en las videoconferencias?

Student 4: He aprendido mucho sobre la importancia del vocabulario para poder defenderme a la hora de hablar, también hemos visto temas muy interesantes como adjetivos, familia, verbo to be, etc. He aprendido que es muy importante saber escuchar y practicarlo constantemente.

3.! ¿Cuál ha sido la parte más interesante de las videoconferencias? ¿por qué?

Student 4: La parte más importante ha sido cuando participamos de

forma didáctica en algunos temas compartiendo los conocimientos con nuestros

compañeros.

4.! ¿Consideras que las videoconferencias permiten interactuar significativamente con tus compañeros?

Student 4: Si, porque existe la interacción y la comunicación es más

agradable, escuchábamos y en ciertos casos nos corregíamos mutuamente.

5.! ¿Cómo ha sido tu experiencia interactuando con tus compañeros a través de las videoconferencias? ¿Te gusto? ¿Por qué?

Student 4: Han sido experiencias en las que a mi parecer he compartido

con mis compañeros. Si me ha gustado porque se aprende de forma muy positiva


100 y didáctica, nos ayuda a perder el miedo al pronunciar otra lengua, y nos dábamos

cuenta de nuestros errores.

6.! ¿Qué te parecen las actividades desarrolladas en las videoconferencias?

Student 4: Las actividades ha sido bien estructuradas y organizadas,

permiten la aplicación de lo que conocemos, y compartirlas y exponerlas con los

compañeros.

7.! ¿La participación en las videoconferencias ha cambiado tu percepción de los cursos virtuales?

Student 4: Si, porque tenía la percepción de que solo eran trabajos que

asignaban los tutores y enviarlos; pero ahora conozco que es como estar en una

clase y permite trabajar y escuchar desde la comodidad de la casa.

8.! ¿Qué sugerencias tienes para complementar y/o mejorar las videoconferencias?

Student 4: Es mejorar la herramienta virtual, porque algunas veces se

presentan problemas de escucha o ruidos en los que no se permite hablar. Los

problemas son más problemas técnicos que de aprendizaje.


101

Appendix F: Tasks

Videoconference 1: Let’s know each other

Time of the session: 1 hour

Objective: Students will know each other and share personal information.

Step 1: The teacher is going to start the videoconference session introducing herself. Then the teacher is going to explain some technical issues about the use of blackboard collaborate tool and the requirements to participate in the oral sessions.

Step 2: The teacher is going to invite the students to share information about themselves, to do it students have to participate in the game talk about yourself:


102

Step 3: Each student has to choose a number and talk for two or three minutes about the topic that is in the number he/she chose.

Step 4: To close the oral session the teacher is going to ask the students if they found something in common with their classmates or something that called their attention.


103

Videoconference 2: John’s daily routine

Objective: Students will ask simple questions and understand simple answers

Activity: Information gap, the students are going to work in groups to complete

John’s daily routine.

Step 1: The teacher is going to start the videoconference session with a review of

the verbs previously learnt.

Step 2: The students, with the teacher’s help, have to complete a match activity

about verbs and “Wh” questions.

Step 3: The students will be organized in pairs to complete John’s daily routine.

Step 5: The teacher is going to send to each group John’s daily routine. Each

daily routine has different information which students must exchange to complete

John’s daily routine.

Step 6: The students have ten minutes to analyze John’s daily routine and clarify

doubts.

Step 7: The students should start completing John’s daily routine with the

information they have, then they have to start exchanging information in order to

complete John’s daily routine.


104

Step 1: Look and the chart below and identify what information is missing

Step 2: Prepare your questions

Step 3: Start asking questions to complete John’s daily routine

Get up

Have breakfast

Leave home

When does John get up?

Get to work

Have lunch

Go home

How? In his office By train

Go Shopping

Have dinner

Call his mother

Where? At home Why

Have a bath

Read a book

Go to bed

John’s daily routine

Task: Ask group B for the missing information Group!A!


105

John’s daily routine

Task: Ask group A for the missing information

Group B

Step 1: Look and the chart below and identify what information is missing

Step 2: Prepare your questions

Step 3: Start asking questions to complete John’s daily routine

Get up

Have breakfast

Leave home

Get to work

Have lunch

Go home

By train Where? How?

Go Shopping

Have dinner

Call his mother

At the supermarket Where? To say good night

Have a bath

Read a book

Go to bed


106

Videoconference 3: Talking about your daily routine

Objective: Students will use present simple and frequency adverbs

Activity: Creating a voki. The students are going to create a voki in which they

are going to talk about their routine.

Step 1: The teacher is going to present a voki in which she talks about her daily

routine, and then she is going to give instructions to the students about how to

create a voki.

Step 2: The teacher is going to ask to the students to create a voki in which they talk about their daily routine and post it in the forum.

Step 3: The students have to listen three of the voki posted in the forum and prepare questions about their classmates’ daily routine.

Step 4: In the videoconference session students are going to ask questions to their classmates about his/her daily routine.

Step 5: The teacher is going to encourage the students to talk about the common things they found in their daily routines.


107

Videoconference 3: Jack’s family tree


Objective: Students will recognize and distinguish vocabulary relates to

family members and relationships among them.

Activity: Information gap. In the videoconference session the students

are going to work in groups to organize Jack’s family tree, identify the

relationship between the members of Jack’s family and determine what each of

them does.

Step 1: The teacher is going to start the videoconference session asking the

students about the vocabulary and the grammar structure they have learnt in the

learning activity one, and then the teacher is going to share these links:

http://www.wikisaber.es/Contenidos/LObjects/bb1/index.html?b

http://cerquella.com/bilingual/deploy/Unit2/vocabulary_1.html

In which students are going to practice family members’ vocabulary.

Step 2: Each group has to organize Jack’s family tree and find out what

each member of Jack’s family does. The teacher is going to send to each group a

chart with Jack’s family tree. Each chart has different information which must be

exchanged in order to complete Jack’s family tree.

Step 3: Before starting, the students will have 10 minutes to analyze the

chart and clarify doubts.

Step 4: The students will complete Jack’s family tree with the information

they have.

Jack’s family tree (Group A)

Here is Jack’s family tree: 1.! Fill in the names of the people on the family tree and what they do.

a)! Alfred is Jack’s grandfather (on his father’s side). He is an artist. b)! Alicia is Jack’s grandmother (on his mother's side). She is a tailor c)! Monique is Jack’s aunt. She is a housewife.


108 d)! Alex is Jack’s father. He is a mechanic. e)! Wendy is Jack’s wife. She is a lawyer. f)! Liza is Jack’s cousin. She is a professional bowler. g)! Arthur is Jack’s brother. He is a chef. h)! Rachel is Jack’s mother-in-law. She is a teacher. i)! Anthony is Jack’s nephew. He is in pre-school j)! Angie is Jack’s daughter. She is in kindergarten

Ask your partner for the missing information you need to complete Jack’s

family tree.

Ask your partner about the following family members: Lucy, Albert, Mary, Diana, David, Daisy, George, Julian, Peter, Sofia. Who is _______?

What does he/she do?


Jack’s'family'(Group'A)'!

! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !

!

!!

'!

Example:!Alicia!is!a!tailor,!grandmother!!on!his!mother!side.!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!

!

!Example!Alex!isa!mechanic.!Jack’s!father.!!

!

!

!

!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !!

! !

Liza!professional!!bowler.!Cousin.!

!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !

!

! !

!


Jack’s!family!tree!(Group!B)

Here!is!Jack’s!family!tree.!!1.! Fill!in!the!names!of!the!people!on!the!family!tree!and!what!they!do.!

!a)! Daisy!is!Jack’s!grandmother!(on!his!father’s!side).!She!is!retired.!b)! David!is!Jack’s!grandfather!(on!his!mother’s!side).!He!is!retired.!c)! Peter!is!Jack’s!uncle.!He!is!unemployed.!d)! Lucy!is!Jack’s!mom.!She!is!a!dance!instructor.!e)! Albert!is!Jack’s!fatherCinClaw.!He!works!at!a!bank.!f)! Sofia!is!Jack’s!sisterCinClaw.!She!is!a!model.!g)! Mary!is!Jack’s!sister.!She!is!a!high!school!student.!!h)! Julian!is!Jack’s!brotherCinClaw.!He!is!a!university!student.!i)! Diana!is!Jack’s!baby!niece.!She!is!only!two!years!old.!j)! George!is!Jack’s!son.!He!is!in!the!third!grade!of!elementary!school!

!


Ask!to!the!other!group!the!missed!information!you!need!to!complete!Jack’s!family!tree

Ask!your!partner!about!the!following!family!members:!Wendy,!Anthony,!Angie,!Alfred,!Alicia,!Monique,!Rachel,!Liza,!Alex,!Arthur!!Who!is!_______?!What!does!he/she!do?!


Jack’s'family'(Group'B)'! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !

!

!!

'!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!

!

!! !

!

! !Albert,!works!in!a!bank.!Father!in!law!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!

! !

!

! !Julian,!university!student,!brother!in!law!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !

!

! !

!

!


Videoconference 5: Sharing information about our own family


Objective: Students will use adjectives to describe members of the family

Activity: Sharing personal information, students are going to create their own family tree

and share it with their classmate in the videoconference.

Step 1: The teacher is going to ask to the students to create their own family tree and post it

in the family information forum. As an example the teacher is going to post her own family

tree.

Ignacia! José! Elvira!!

Martha! Edilberto!

EmelithC!EdilbertoCEliseoCEmilianoC

Eduardo!

!

!

!

Elizabeth!

Mariano!!

Lov

e!!and!values!


Step 2: Each student has to read two of the family tree posted in the forum and prepare

three questions that he/she would like to know about the family tree he/she has chosen.

Step 3: Each student is going to have five minutes to share his/her family tree with the

group. The partners are going to ask questions previously prepared.


Videoconference 6: Talking about the best friend


Objective: Students will use adjectives to describe the best friend.

Activity: Students are going to talk about his/her best friend and discuss the main

characteristics of a good friend.

Step 1: The teacher is going to start the videoconference session with a review of the

adjective previously learnt.

Step 2: The students with the teacher’s help are going to complete the following crossword:

Step 3: The teacher is going to ask the students to talk about the friend they have

introduced in the forum.

Step 4: The teacher is going to present the following the video: How can you be a good

friend?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38Sxy5hrej0

Step 5: Students should give their opinion about the video and discuss about the following

questions:

What do you think are the characteristics of a good friend?

Does your best friend have some of the characteristics mentioned in the video? Which

ones?



Appendix G Sample of transcriptions

Blackboard Collaborate Session 1 (06 /03/2014) What characteristics of interactions emerge when implementing oral learning activities in an EFL virtual learning environment?

Activity: Introduce yourself Transcription Code

T: Listo muchachos desde acá empezamos. Qué pasaría con Claudia? Teacher giving instructions M: Me sale un Anuncio C: Profe a mi también me sale un anuncio para ingresar los datos, pero no se que haya que hacer use of Spanish to express doubts T: El anuncio hace parte de la actividad, no ingresen datos, ya estoy organizando todo para configurar la actividad Teacher giving instructions J: profe, una compañera esta escribiendo por el chat que no escucha nada use of Spanish to express technical problems T: Esperen un momento que voy a hacer algo T: Ahora que les aparece? J: Any question M: Any question T: Ok, perfect, ahora si vamos a comenzar Teacher giving instructions T: Bueno muchachos, entonces este es el juego, si lo alcanza a ver? Teacher giving instructions M: Si sra students reaction C: Si sra students reaction T: Ya Claudia me puede escuchar? T: Bueno, esta primera actividad es una oportunidad para conocernos, el juego les aparecera en pantalla, ustedes deben escoger un número del uno al 17, en el número que escojan les aparecera una pregunta acerca de ustedes. Entonces empezamos el juego: Este un juego por turnos, empezamos con M, luego sigue C, luego J, esperemos que C, se pueda conectar durante el proceso

Teacher giving instructions

J: Bueno profe student's reaction T: Entonces, empezamos con M. M Can you give a number from 1 to 16 Teacher leading the students to participate M: Sra? students asking for repetition T: Can you give a number from 1 to 16? Teacher's response C: Profe no te alcanzamos a escuchar bien Technical issues J: Profe, acercate al microfono Technical issues T: Estoy lo más cerca posible, can you listen to me? Technical issues M: Si sra Student's response T: Ok M, can you give a number from 1 to 16? Teacher leading the students to participate M: yes Student's response T: Tell me the number Teacher leading the students to participate M: Sra? students asking for repetition



Activity: Introduce yourself T: M, you have to give a number teacher clarifying M: Sra? students asking for repetition T: tú tienes que darme un número Teacher using Spanish to clarify a request M: eehh fourteen Student's response T: Fourteen, ok, fourteen card says: Talk about your favorite music Teacher leading the students to participate M: My favorite music is rock and reggae student's response T: Do you like dancing reggae? Teacher leading the students to participate M: What? student asking for repetition T: Do you like dancing reggae? Teacher leading the students to participate M: Profe no te escucho lo último using Spanish to ask for repetition T: Do you like dancing? Do you know what dancing mean? Teacher leading the students to participate M: yes Student's response T: ok, perfect! C, can you give a number from 1 to 16? Teacher leading the students to participate C: 9 Student's response T: ok, card 9 says: talk about the place where you live Teacher leading the students to participate C: I live in Bosa, in Bogotá Student's response M: Teacher, que significa esa pregunta using Spanish to request information C: Donde vivo, donde vive usted Using Spanish to response to classmate request T: good C! Now, can you describe your place Teacher leading the students to participate C: Excuse me? student asking for repetition T: Ok, can you describe your place, I mean, describe your house, your apartament teacher clarifying C: Hablo sobre donde yo vivo using Spanish to confirm a request T: yes, what you can tell us about your place Teacher confirming a request C: In my house, there is one bathroom, one mmm… kitchen, two bedroomsmmm… student's response T: ok, that's ok teacher approval M: Teacher puedo describir por ejemplo mi casa student's self nomitation T: yes! teacher´s approval M: Entonces digo, I love my house, there is bathroom, two bedrooms, there is kitchen, there is living room and there is garden student's T: Very good! I liked it, Teacher's praise T: ok now is J's turn, J can you give a number from 1 to 16 Teacher leading the students to participate J: 6 Student's response T: Card 6 says: Talk about your city or your town Teacher leading the students to participate M: Teacher que es town Use of Spanish to make questions T: pueblo Teacher's response J: entonces es hablar de la ciudad nuestra, no? Using Spanish to ask for clarification



Activity: Introduce yourself T: yes Teacher's response J: Ok teacher, there is park, Student's response T: ok teacher approval J: teacher, me escuchas xxx M: teacher xxx T: I listened when you said: there is park, M, me ibas a decir algo? M: yes teacher, how do you say town in English? T: town? Student's request M: yes Teacher asking for clarifiaction T: but town is in English xxx M: ah no, no no, how do you say town in Spanish ? student's clarification T: Town means pueblo Teacher response M: thank you teacher T: ok, J, please continue Teacher leading the students to participate J: there is church, teacher me escuchas C: Yo creo que la profe no nos esta escuchando Technical issues J: Teacheeeer xxx M and C: Laughter xxx T: ok, here you have to talk about your city or your town, you can tell us: I am from Cali, there are parks, there are churches. Me escuchan? Teacher giving instructions C: Si profe J: teacher C: aparece como desconectada M: Profe no te escuchamos y no sale nada Technical issues L: hola me escuchan J: si te escuchamos, quien es? L: Lorena J: Hola Lorena C: welcome J: esperemos porque la profe esta desconectada Technical issues C: ya se conecto la profe nuevamente T: Hola, me escuchan? Me escuchan mejor? Technical issues M and J: si sra Technical issues T: Listo, continuemos… Estabamos con quien? Teacher giving instructions M: con Jonathan T: ok, Jonathan, si quieres puedes escoger otro número Teacher leading the students to participate



Activity: Introduce yourself J: Bueno profe, el ten Switching from Spanish to Englisg to respond T: card 10 says: Any question, in this case one of your classmates asks you a question, ok? Teacher giving instructions T: M, can you ask something to J? Teacher giving instructions M: yo? Mmmm using Spanish to confirm a request J: M L: Teacher T: yes-' L: puedo yo hacer la pregunta? Student's self nomination T: yes teacher approval L: J, are you married? C and M: laughter humor L: or single? C and M: laughter humor T: that's a good question… laugther humor L: laugther humor L: J… Requesting an answer J: No entendí nada Using Spanish to ask for clarification M: que si eres casado o soltero Using Spanish to clarify J: soltero… laughter, profe how do you say soltero in English Student asking for information M and T: single xxx J: dime student asking for repetition M and T: single xxx J: simbol? student asking for repetition T: single Teacher's response M: S i n g l e collaboration J: Ok, thank you… Entonces I am single M, L and C: laughter humor J: no se rian T: laughter, it was a good question, very good L! L now you have to choose a number humor L: number fifteen T: Card 15 says: Talk about your favorite book Teacher leading the students to participate L: my favorite book is el alquimista for Paulo Coelho, is a book interesting, I love you book y nothing teacher Student's response T: ok L, very good! Who is next? Quien es el siguiente? Teacher leading the students to participate J: M Student nominating his classmate T: M, give a number Teacher leading the students to participate M.eehh… 14 Student's response



Activity: Introduce yourself T: 14, ok, you already chose 14, right? M: Si sra T: so, another number M: 4 T: card 4 says: Talk about your favorite singer Teacher leading the students to participate M: qué es singer? using Spanish to request information C: cantante collaboration T: Very good! M: my favorite singer is Adele and Andrés Cepeda student's response T: that's great… who is next Teacher leading the students to participate C: Yo profe Student willing to particpate T: ok, give a number Teacher request C: mmm. 5 student's response T: card 5 says: Any question Student willing to particpate M: What object are there in your bedroom? Student willing to particpate C: Disculpame, la última palabra cúal es? student asking for clarification M: Bedroom, que objetos hay en tu alcoba? clarification C: there is a t.v., there is an bed, there is a computer Student's response T: ok, very good! Who is next? Teacher leading the students to participate C: J J: three T: card 3 says: Talk about your favorite sport Teacher leading the students to participate J: mi deporte favorito? using Spanish to confirm a request T: yes Teacher's response J: My favorite sport and basketball and I play it with friends in the park Student's response T: very good J! who is next? Teacher leading the students to participate J: L T: L can you give a number Teacher leading the students to participate L: 11 teacher student's response T: 11 card says: Talk about your experience learning English Teacher leading the students to participate L: interesting because (noise) student's response T: L, no te escuchamos Technical issues L: ahora? T: yes L: my experience learning English is wonderful and interesting, I know new people, that's all teacher student's response T: very good Claudia! All of you are doing very good. Who is next? teacher's reaction/ Teacher leading the students



Activity: Introduce yourself to participate

M: Yo profe… one Student's response T: one says: Talk about your hobbies Teacher leading the students to participate M: I like listen to music in the … en las tardes cómo se dice profe? students using Spanish to express doubts L: afternoon collaboration M: in the afternoon, the t.v. weekend, weekend es fin de semana? using Spanish to confirm an information T: yes Teacher's response M: esos son mis hobbies T: ok. Who is next Teacher leading the students to participate C: yo profe, seven student's response T: talk about your favorite food teacher's request C: my favorite food is the chicken student's response T: ok, very good! Teacher fostering students M: my favorite food is pizza Student willing to particpate T: very good M, I love pizza too! Who is next? praising students J: yo profe, profe no te escucho bien Technical issues L: profe te estamos escuchacndo mal Technical issues T: y ahora? Technical issues C: profe te escuchamos lejos Technical issues T: y ahora? Technical issues Everybody: ahora si Technical issues T: ok. J tell me a number Teacher request J. 2 student's response T: talk about your best friend teacher request J: profe como se dice que no tengo mejor amigo using Spanish to request information T: I don't have best friend Teacher's response L: I don't have J: I don't have best friend T: why? teacher request J: mmm laughter Student's response T: Some of you want to talk about your best friend? Teacher leading the students to participate L: yes, yo… My best friend is a girl , is beautiful… profe como digo compañera? student's response T: partner L: she is partner, excelent partner for me, she always listen to me student's response T: very good! So let's choose two more numbers and we are going to finish everybody: ok teacher



Activity: Introduce yourself T: who is next? Teacher leading the students to participate L: yo teacher, eight Student's response T: talk about your favorite animal Teacher request L: My favorite animal is dog, it is beautiful, funny Student's response T: ok, that's good… who is next? Teacher leading the students to participate M: yo teacher Student´s response T: Ok, M give a number Teacher request M: 15 Student's response T: talk about your favorite video game Teacher request M: My favorite video game is Mario Bross Student's response everybody: laughter Humor T: I like it too and that's the only one that I know how to play Humor everybody: laughter Humor T: that's true, it is the only one I play… ok guys before to finish I would like to know your opinion about this exercise Closing the session

Documents

i Promoting oral interaction through task-based learning ... · comunicación mediada por la tecnología en los procesos de aprendizaje de un lenguaje. ... interacción sincrónica