Japanese EFL learners’ negotiated interaction during convergent and divergent tasks in SCMC

June 2-3 JALTCALL 2007 1

Japanese EFL learners’ negotiated interaction during

convergent and divergent tasks in SCMC

Daniel O. Jackson

J.F. Oberlin University, Tokyo




Overview

• Introduction– Task-based synchronous CMC– Background to the study

• Method– Participants– Procedures– Tasks in the study

• Results• Discussion


Tasks in synchronous CMC

• Learners can negotiate for meaning, achieve mutual comprehension, and modify production (Pellettieri, 2000)

• Task type affects negotiation: jigsaw > information gap and decision-making (Blake, 2000)

• Seeding may increase negotiation: decision-making > jigsaw (Smith, 2003)


Negotiated interaction(From Varonis & Gass, 1985, p. 74)

T I > R > RR


Negotiated interaction

S1: if you have a job you don’t like, you might quit and no enthusiam to work

S1: it is no fun in your life.

S2: What does enthusiam mean?

S1: this means you have no interesting for working

S2: I see, thank you.


Tasks in synchronous CMC

• Degree of task structure influences communication in CMC -- less teacher-directed task structures encourage metalanguage (Lamy, 2007)


Background to the study

• Integrate CMC tasks in an EAP course for English majors at a private university in Japan

• Adopt pedagogic task types

• Employ a classroom research strategy that builds on existing findings


Purpose

• Compare EFL learners’ interaction during convergent and divergent tasks in synchronous CMC


Goal orientation (adapted from Duff, 1986, p. 150)

Convergent task

Problem

Shared goalS1 S2

Split goalS1 S2

Issue, opinion, debate

Divergent task


Summary of Duff (1986)

• Words Con. = Div.

• Turns Con. > Div.

• Words/Turn Div. > Con.

• S-nodes/C-unit Div. > Con.

• Questions– Confirmation checks Con. > Div.– Referential questions Con. > Div.


Participants

• Female English majors taking EAP

• 2nd year

• L1 Japanese

• Most reported having used chat

• All had taken a computer lit course

• 19 students (both tasks)


Procedures

• CMC tasks in weeks 5, 8 & 11• T explained the tasks to the class• Ss read instructions and logged into Moodle• Chat module/grouping were used• Ss typed messages for 20 mins./task• Chat logs saved by T• Survey carried out in week 11




Tasks examined in the studyDecision-making - con. Opinion exchange - div.


Measures

• Words, turns, words per turn

• Referential Qs, comprehension checks, clarification requests, and confirmation checks (inter-rater reliability was 92%)

• Clauses per C-unit (following Chaudron, 1988; Crookes, 1990; Foster, 1998; Robinson, 2001; Djapoura, 2005)


Clauses per c-unit

S3: Yes, you may feel happy if you do a job you love, but, after that, having a lot of money can be more happier…

S4: Actually, I agree with your opinion!!


Summary of results

• Participants typed 18% more words in the divergent task (1352) than in the convergent task (1142)

• The convergent task contained 36% more turns (225) than the divergent task (166)

• Average WPT was 9.61 in the divergent task (SD=4.28) and 6.08 in the convergent task (SD=2.58)


Summary of results

• Participants typed 18% more words in the divergent task (1352) than in the convergent task (1142)

• The convergent task contained 36% more turns (225) than the divergent task (166)

• Average WPT was 9.61 in the divergent task (SD=4.28) and 6.08 in the convergent task (SD=2.58)


Summary of results

• There were more than 3 times the number of referential questions in the convergent task (51) than in the divergent task (14)

• Amount of negotiation for meaning was similar (and low) across both tasks

• The average CPC was 1.39 in the convergent task (SD=.37) and 1.78 in the divergent task (SD=.27)


Summary of results

• There were more than 3 times the number of referential questions in the convergent task (51) than in the divergent task (14)

• Amount of negotiation for meaning was similar (and low) across both tasks

• The average CPC was 1.39 in the convergent task (SD=.37) and 1.78 in the divergent task (SD=.27)


The individual dimension:Responses to F2F and CMC

4.7 4.74.4

6.97.3

4.34.6

5

6.4 6.2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Difficulty Stress Abililty Interest Motivation

Face-to-face Chat


The individual dimension:Participants’ written comments

• “There were times when replies in the chats came late”

• “In chat I couldn’t write the things I wanted to write…I want to become able to do it properly”

• “Chats took time to reply to and I’m not a skilled typist, but it was fun”


Limitations

• Grouping– Not all participated in both tasks

• Measurement– Tasks not counterbalanced– 5-week interval between tasks– Survey timing


Discussion

• Different effects on production in CMC

• Low frequency of modified interaction

• Ability, motivation, interest ratings may vary


Contact information

Daniel Jackson

[email protected]

Japanese EFL learners’ negotiated interaction during convergent and divergent tasks in SCMC

Documents

convergent task sd

divergent task sd

task structures

tasksprocedurescmc tasks

studyintegrate cmc tasks

synchronous cmcbackground

synchronous cmclearners

comprehension checks