This study examined oral discourse generated by learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) using two different communication task types i.e. jigsaw and decision-making. It investigated how the learners approached and processed the tasks and how they interacted during task completion. The data for the study comprised transcribed recordings of learner interactions working on given tasks. They were qualitatively analysed focusing on the cognitive and social processing. Findings showed that both task types promoted episodes of negotiated interaction when the participants attempted task completion. However, close examination showed that the participants engaged in more intensive negotiations which were exploratory in nature and highly collaborative during decision-making task completion than during task completion of the jigsaw task type. The results suggest that different task types elicited different kinds of interaction from the learners and how the participants approached and processed the tasks shaped the kind of learner interactions they generated.
| Published in | Education Journal (Volume 2, Issue 6) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.edu.20130206.16 |
| Page(s) | 242-248 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2013. Published by Science Publishing Group |
ral Discourse, Negotiated Interaction, Exploratory Talk, Communication Tasks
| [1] | Basturkmen, H. (2002). Negotiating meaning in seminar-type discussion and EAP. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 233-242. |
| [2] | Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1), 120-136. |
| [3] | Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35. |
| [4] | de la Colina, A. A. & Garcia Mayo, M. P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In M. P. Garcia Mayo (ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (91 - 116). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. |
| [5] | Edwards, D. & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen. |
| [6] | Ellis, R. (2004). Task-based language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
| [7] | Garcia Mayo, M. P. (2007). Tasks, negotiation, and L2 learning in a foreign language context. In M. P. Garcia Mayo (ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (69 - 90). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. |
| [8] | Gass, S. M. &Varonis, E. M. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in second language acquisition, 16, 283-302. |
| [9] | Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. CA: Sage Publications. |
| [10] | Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1-36. |
| [11] | Kowal, M & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing. How can we promote it in the immersion classroom? In R. K. Johnson & M. Swain (eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (284-309). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [12] | Kumpulainen, K. & Wray, D. (2002). (eds). Classroom interaction and social learning: from theory to practice. New York: Routledge Falmer. |
| [13] | Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and Conversational Adjustments to Nonnative Speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177-193. |
| [14] | Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition (377-393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. |
| [15] | Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on language acquisition: Second language acquisition volume 2 (413-468). New York: Academic Press. |
| [16] | Long, M. H. & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (15-41). New York: Cambridge University Press. |
| [17] | Mackey, A. &Gass, S. M. (2006). Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 169-178. |
| [18] | Mackey, A., Oliver, R. &Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53(1), 35 – 66. |
| [19] | Mercer, N. (1994). The quality of talk in children’s joint activity at the computer. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 10, 24-32. |
| [20] | Mercer, N. (1996). The quality of talk in children’s collaborative activity in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6, 359-377. |
| [21] | Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A. & Van Lier, L. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 377 – 405. |
| [22] | Olsen, J. W-B & Kagan, S. (1992). About cooperative learning. In Kessler, C. (Ed), Cooperative language learning. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc. |
| [23] | Pica, T. (1992). The textual outcomes of native-speaker-non-native-speaker negotiation: What do they reveal about second language learning? In C. Kramsch& S. McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text and Context (198-237). Cambridge, MA: Heath. |
| [24] | Pica, T. & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In S. M. Gass& C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (115-132). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. |
| [25] | Pica, T., Kanagy, R. &Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communicative tasks for second language instruction. In Crookes, G. &Gass, S. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (9-34). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. |
| [26] | Phillips, T. (1990). Structuring context for exploratory talk. In D. Wray (Ed.), Talking and Listening (60-72). Leamington Spa: Scholastic. |
| [27] | Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interactions: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87, 38 – 57. |
| [28] | Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass& C. Madden (Eds), Input in Second Language Acquisition (235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. |
| [29] | Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in the study of language (125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
| [30] | Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (64-81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
| [31] | Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
| [32] | Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 44 – 63. |
| [33] | Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), The handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (471–483). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum. |
| [34] | Swain, M. &Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: a step toward second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391. |
| [35] | Swain, M. &Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320-337. |
| [36] | Swain, M. &Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251-274. |
| [37] | Swain, M. &Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In Bygate, M., Skehan, P. & Swain, M. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (99-118). Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited. |
| [38] | Tabatabaei, S. O. (2009). The impact of task type and gender on total incidence of negotiation for meaning. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 238 – 270. |
| [39] | Wells, G. (1987). The meaning makers: children learning language and using language to learn. Portsmouth: Heinemann Educational Books Inc. |
APA Style
Hazleena Baharun, Abd. Razak Zakari. (2013). A Qualitative Analysis of EFL Learners’ Task-Generated Discourse. Education Journal, 2(6), 242-248. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20130206.16
ACS Style
Hazleena Baharun; Abd. Razak Zakari. A Qualitative Analysis of EFL Learners’ Task-Generated Discourse. Educ. J. 2013, 2(6), 242-248. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20130206.16
AMA Style
Hazleena Baharun, Abd. Razak Zakari. A Qualitative Analysis of EFL Learners’ Task-Generated Discourse. Educ J. 2013;2(6):242-248. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20130206.16
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.edu.20130206.16,
author = {Hazleena Baharun and Abd. Razak Zakari},
title = {A Qualitative Analysis of EFL Learners’ Task-Generated Discourse},
journal = {Education Journal},
volume = {2},
number = {6},
pages = {242-248},
doi = {10.11648/j.edu.20130206.16},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20130206.16},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.edu.20130206.16},
abstract = {This study examined oral discourse generated by learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) using two different communication task types i.e. jigsaw and decision-making. It investigated how the learners approached and processed the tasks and how they interacted during task completion. The data for the study comprised transcribed recordings of learner interactions working on given tasks. They were qualitatively analysed focusing on the cognitive and social processing. Findings showed that both task types promoted episodes of negotiated interaction when the participants attempted task completion. However, close examination showed that the participants engaged in more intensive negotiations which were exploratory in nature and highly collaborative during decision-making task completion than during task completion of the jigsaw task type. The results suggest that different task types elicited different kinds of interaction from the learners and how the participants approached and processed the tasks shaped the kind of learner interactions they generated.},
year = {2013}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - A Qualitative Analysis of EFL Learners’ Task-Generated Discourse AU - Hazleena Baharun AU - Abd. Razak Zakari Y1 - 2013/11/30 PY - 2013 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20130206.16 DO - 10.11648/j.edu.20130206.16 T2 - Education Journal JF - Education Journal JO - Education Journal SP - 242 EP - 248 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2327-2619 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20130206.16 AB - This study examined oral discourse generated by learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) using two different communication task types i.e. jigsaw and decision-making. It investigated how the learners approached and processed the tasks and how they interacted during task completion. The data for the study comprised transcribed recordings of learner interactions working on given tasks. They were qualitatively analysed focusing on the cognitive and social processing. Findings showed that both task types promoted episodes of negotiated interaction when the participants attempted task completion. However, close examination showed that the participants engaged in more intensive negotiations which were exploratory in nature and highly collaborative during decision-making task completion than during task completion of the jigsaw task type. The results suggest that different task types elicited different kinds of interaction from the learners and how the participants approached and processed the tasks shaped the kind of learner interactions they generated. VL - 2 IS - 6 ER -
Email: