Whose turn is it anyway?:
A study of the effects of
tasks and grouping on
interaction turns
Pattamawan Jimarkon
[email protected]
What’s TBL?
► Task-Based
Learning provides learners with
manifold opportunities for group- and peer-based
interaction, which is believed to encourage
authentic use of language and meaningful
communication (for example, Ellis, 2003; Nunan,
1989; Swain & Lapkin, 2002; Willis 1996)
► ‘Task’
is viewed as a teaching tool which “involves
communicative language use in which the user’s
attention is focused on meaning rather than
linguistic structure” (Nunan, 1989, p. 10)
My questions
► TBL
requires a certain level of pre-existing
language competency
► Thai
university students have low language
confidence and low competence (WatsonTodd, 2001)
► How can we facilitate this?
Literature Review
►
►
►
►
Group work provides learners with more opportunities to use the target
language than teacher-led and teacher-fronted instruction (for example,
Crookes & Chaudron, 2001; Long & Porter, 1985) group work and group
discussion tasks are common practice in language teaching
Working with peers in a group setting provides opportunities for learners to
engage in dialogues which act as “instructional conversations” (Lantolf,
2002, p. 106) and create zones of proximal development for each other
“where intellect and affect are fused in a unified whole” (Vygotsky,
1934/1987, p. 373)
Nunan (1989) puts forward the idea of the use of tasks that provide
language practice yet at the same time fostered classroom interaction
In A Framework for Task-Based Learning, Willis (1996) categorises types of
task with regard mainly to their different degrees of cognitive challenge.
Tasks can engage learners in listing, ordering and sorting, comparing,
problem-solving, sharing experiences, or involve creativity (see Willis, 1996,
p. 149-154; Willis, 1999).
Independent Variables
Grouping
►
Mixed-proficiency
►
Homogeneousintermediate
►
Homogeneous-
elementary
Task
• Listing 1
• Listing 2
• Ordering and sorting 1
• Ordering and sorting 2
• Matching
• Comparing
• Problem solving 1
• Problem solving 2
• Sharing personal attitude 1
• Sharing personal attitude 2
• Creative task 1
• Creative task2
Data
► Audio-recording
of group interactions
32 KMUTT engineering students:
8 female 24 male
144 interactant cases
3 groups x 12 tasks = 36 episodes
The specific research questions that were addressed
when analysing the results were:
►
►
►
Were there grouping effects? That is, did the learners
interact differently when in mixed-proficiency groups and
homogenous-proficiency groups? If so, in what way or
ways were the interactions different?
Were there task effects? That is, did the tasks, which were
categorised into six types, affect the learners’ linguistic
performance in different ways?
Were there any interaction effects between grouping and
task? That is, did the combinations of grouping types and
tasks affect learners’ linguistic performance in a manner
different to the simple sum of the individual effects of task
and grouping?
Dependent Variables
A.
Quantity of interaction
Words per minute
Turns per minute
Words per turn
B. Quality of interaction
T-units per minute
Words per t-unit
Language switches
Negotiation of meaning
ANOVA Tests
1.4
7
1.2
6
Mean words per turn
Mean turns per minute
Main effects for factor A: Grouping
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
1 Mixed-prof.
2 Homo-inter.
3 Homo-elem.
Group
Figure 1. Turns per minute for the three
grouping types
1 Mixed-prof.
2 Homo-inter.
3 Homo-elem.
Group
Figure 2. words per turn for the three
grouping types
3
14
2.5
12
Mean words per turn
Mean turns per minute
Main effects for factor B: Task
2
1.5
1
0.5
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
Task
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Task
Figure 4. Means of turns per minute
Figure 5. Means of words per turn for
for the 12 tasks
the 12 tasks
12
Interaction effects for factors grouping x task
4.5
25
20
3.5
3
1 Mixed-prof.
2.5
2 Homo-inter.
2
3 Homo-elem.
1.5
1
Mean words per turn
Mean turns per minute
4
1 Mixed-prof.
15
2 Homo-inter.
3 Homo-elem.
10
5
0.5
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
Task
Figure 5 Means of turns per minute for the
three grouping types across 12 tasks
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Task
Figure 6 Means of words per turn for
three grouping types across 12 tasks
ANOVA Analysis
Turn per minute
there was a combined influence of the two factors on the number of turns per
minute.
► crossing lines in the interaction effect suggested some influence of the interaction of
the two factors, the directions of the three lines were generally similar
► task factor was more noticeable and was considered to be more important
►
Words per turn
no significant interaction effect for the two factors
► Effect size of main effects for task was bigger
►
►
Inverse correlation between the two variables
More turns – shorter turns
Fewer turns – longer turns
What does that tell us:
Simpler tasks – lexical cohesion which may entail:
indexicality = “expressions whose interpretation requires
the identification of some element of the utterance
context, as stipulated by their lexical meanings”
(Nunberg, 1993, p. 1)
minimalisation = , the language was produced in a way
that reflected the participants’ limited vocabulary and
poor syntactic knowledge but the communication was
carried out successfully
Pidginisation = use of their mother tongue and their habit
of sounding out a few key words of the target language
and the grammatical forms arising from the pidginisation
resembled neither that of the target language nor that of
the mother tongue (Bickerton, 1977).
►
►Discussion
tasks - long turns and idea
organisation which may come at
expense of topic monopolisation
Tips for teachers
Vocabulary – easy, less complex tasks
Long Talk – discussion & narrative tasks
Thank you.
You’ve been such a great crowd!!!