of 28 /28
Task implementation features and Task implementation features and language production in language production in chronous computer-mediated communicati chronous computer-mediated communicati Nik Aloesnita Nik Mohd Alwi Nik Aloesnita Nik Mohd Alwi [email protected] [email protected] Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia Rebecca Adams Rebecca Adams [email protected] [email protected] Auckland University, New Zealand Auckland University, New Zealand

Nik Aloesnita Nik Mohd Alwi [email protected] Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia

  • Author
    ugo

  • View
    76

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Task implementation features and language production in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Nik Aloesnita Nik Mohd Alwi [email protected] Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia Rebecca Adams [email protected] Auckland University, New Zealand. E-communication and SLA. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Text of Nik Aloesnita Nik Mohd Alwi [email protected] Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia

  • Task implementation features and language production in synchronous computer-mediated communication Nik Aloesnita Nik Mohd [email protected] Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia

    Rebecca [email protected] Auckland University, New Zealand

  • Warchauer (1998) :A second language learner must have the ability to read, write and communicate in an electronic environment.

    Scopes of this presentation:- Computer-mediated communication (CMC)- Task complexity- Current studyE-communication and SLA

  • Synchronous (SCMC)

    - Real-time communication e.g. internet-relay chat

    - Can be either written (text) or spoken (audio) language or visual (image) or any two (audio and image) or all three (text, audio and image)

    Computer-mediated communication

  • Text-SCMCPrevious studies on text-SCMC and TBLT

    encourages meaning negotiation and interactional modifications (Kung, 2004; Lai & Zhao, 2004)

    promotes noticing and focus on form (Fiori, 2005)

    enhances accuracy (Blake & Zyzik, 2003) and complexity (Cheon, 2003)

    fosters active learning and equal participation (Freiermuth & Jarell, 2006)

    develops oral, interactive competence (Payne & Ross, 2005)

  • Cognition HypothesisIncreasing cognitive complexity of interactive tasks along:

    1) Resource-directing variables

    Accuracy Complexity

    2) Resource-dispersing variables Accuracy Complexity

  • Task implementation features in the current studyResource-dispersing variables

    Task structure:

    Low task structure (TS) and high task structure (+TS)

    Language support:

    No language support (LS) and with language support (+LS)

  • Research hypothesesHypothesis 1a: TS more accuracy than +TS

    Hypothesis 1b: LS more accuracy than +LS

    Hypothesis 2a: TS less complexity than +TS

    Hypothesis 2b: LS less complexity than +LS

  • Research methodologySubjects: n = 96; 4 groups of Engineering learners doing English for Professional Communication

    Text-SCMC tool: Microsoft internet relay chat (mIRC)

    Procedures:Learners- Engaged in 45 minutes chat session performing a problem solving, authentic engineering task

    2) Researcher- Monitored and captured each learners screen using the classroom management systems

  • Research taskRole-play engineers at a multinational company Technical description of the software to propose

    Tasks:Listen to each others proposalsCompare and contrast Discuss until consensus based on: 1. practicality2. utilization 3. costComplete recommendation worksheet

  • High Task Structure (+TS) conditionInstruction: Each of you has information on the software. As you discuss the software, fill in this table. This will help you compare and contrast the software to decide what is best for your company. continued

    Criteria

    SoftwareGeneral informationPracticalityUtilizationCostOrCADMatlabAutomation StudioMaxPlus IIPOINTS

  • Screenshot of language support

  • Summary of research design

    -TS +TS-LS G1n = 24G2n = 24+LS G3n = 24G4n = 24

  • Measures of language productionAccuracyError/AS-unitTLU auxiliary verbsTLU modal verbs

    ComplexityClause/AS-unitWords beyond the first 1000 wordsGuiraud Index

  • Results: Accuracy 1) Errors/AS-unitTask Structure(p 0.05)Language Support(p 0.05)Interaction effect(p 0.05)-LS+LS+TS-TS

  • Results: Accuracy 2) TLU auxiliary verbsTask Structure(p 0.05)Language Support(p 0.05)Interaction effect(p 0.05)-LS+LS+TS-TS

  • Results: Accuracy 3) TLU modal verbsTask Structure(p 0.05)Language Support(p 0.05)Interaction effect(p 0.05)-LS+LS+TS-TS

  • Summary: Accuracy Hypotheses:

    Hypothesis 1a: TS more accuracy than +TS

    Hypothesis 1b: LS more accuracy than +LS

    Results:

    +TS more accuracy than TS

    +LS more accuracy than LS

  • Task structure: Discussion continuedThis means we did not have much trouble understanding the gist of the message, and I think that made us more attentive to the language our teammates used. I mean it allowed us to be more conscious of others language expressions (Student A)

  • Results: Complexity 1) Clause/AS-unitTask Structure(p 0.05)Language Support(p 0.05)Interaction effect(p 0.05)-LS+LS+TS-TS

  • Results: Complexity 2) Words beyond the first 1000 wordsTask Structure(p 0.05)Language Support(p 0.05)Interaction effect(p 0.05)-LS+LS+TS-TS

  • Results: Complexity Task Structure(p 0.05)Language Support(p 0.05)Interaction effect(p 0.05)-LS+LS-TS+TS

    Chart1

    8.28.6

    8.567.97

    -TS

    +TS

    Guiraud index

    Sheet1

    Sheet2

    00

    -LS8.28.6

    +LS8.567.7

    -LS+LS

    -TS8.28.56

    +TS8.67.97

    Sheet2

    00

    00

    -TS

    +TS

    Guiraud index

    Sheet3

  • Summary: Complexity Hypotheses:

    Hypothesis 2a: TS less complexity than +TS

    Hypothesis 2b: LS less complexity than +LS

    Results:

    No significant effects of task structure on complexity

    +LS less complexity than -LS

  • Discussion

    +TS or +LS accuracy

    -LS complexity

  • DiscussionThe language exercises and notes were very helpful when we had to do activities without the teachers help. Whenever I was uncertain of my grammar, I could refer to the notes. I could also compare what I have typed with the notes before I posted my message. It was convenient and I feel more confident to talk (Student B)

  • DiscussionWe should be given more chance to practice English language using text chat. It encourages me to participate more because I can see what I want to say on the screen before posting my message. It reduces the probability of making errors. When we discuss language problems for example in a group of four or five, we can compare all opinions at the same time on one screen. It is very motivating (Student C)

  • Implications for TeachingIncreasing support (structure/language) to promote attention to accuracy

    -Avoid pre-task focus on specific forms to promote complexity

    -Task complexity: SCMC f2f

  • ReferencesBlake, R. & Zyzik, E. (2003). Whos helping whom?: Learner/Heritage-speakers networked discussions in Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 519-544.

    Cheon, H. (2003). The viability of computer mediated communication in the Korean secondary EFL classroom. Asian EFL Journal, 5(1). Retrieved April 16, 2005, from www.asian-efl-journal.com/march03.sub2hc.pdf

    Fiori, M. L. (2005). The development of grammatical competence through synchronous computer-mediated communication. CALICO, 22(3), 567-602.

    Freiermuth, M. & Jarrell, D. (2006). Willingness to communicate: Can online chat help? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 189-212.

    Kung, S-C., (2004). Synchronous electronic discussions in an EFL reading class. ELT Journal, 58(2), 164-173.

    Lai, C. & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 102-120. Retrieved January 9, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num3/laizhao/default.html

    Payne, J. S. & Ross, B. (2005). Synchronous CMC, working memory, and L2 oral proficiency development. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 35-54. Retrieved April 18, 2006, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/payne/default.html

    Warschauer, M. (1998). Researching technology in TESOL: Determinist, instrumental, and critical approaches. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 757-761.

  • THANK YOU

    *

    ********2 groups were given a basic version of the task or what is termed as Low Task Structure (TS), while the other 2 groups were given a more structured-version of the task or what is termed as High Task Structure (+TS) to assist them in their discussion. As you may see, the +TS groups received a worksheet consisting of a comparison table for learners to fill in while discussing the different types of software.

    ************* ****