Nik Aloesnita Nik Mohd Alwi aloesnita@ump.my Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia

Task implementation features and Task implementation features and language production in language production in

synchronous computer-mediated communication synchronous computer-mediated communication

Nik Aloesnita Nik Mohd AlwiNik Aloesnita Nik Mohd Alwialoesnita@ump.edu.my aloesnita@ump.edu.my

Universiti Malaysia Pahang, MalaysiaUniversiti Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia

Rebecca AdamsRebecca Adamsr.adams@auckland.ac.nzr.adams@auckland.ac.nz

Auckland University, New ZealandAuckland 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 study

E-communication and SLAE-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 communicationComputer-mediated communication

Text-SCMCText-SCMC

Previous 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 HypothesisCognition Hypothesis

Increasing cognitive complexity of interactive tasks along:

1) Resource-directing variables →

Accuracy ↑ Complexity ↑

2) Resource-dispersing variables →

Accuracy ↑ Complexity ↓

Task implementation features in the current studyTask implementation features in the current study

Resource-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 hypothesesResearch hypotheses

Hypothesis 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 methodologyResearch methodology

Subjects: n = 96; 4 groups of Engineering learners doing English for Professional Communication

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

Procedures:1) Learners- Engaged in 45 minutes chat session performing a problem solving, authentic engineering task

2) Researcher- Monitored and captured each learner’s screen using the classroom management systems

Research taskResearch task

Role-play engineers at a multinational company Technical description of the software to propose

Tasks:Listen to each other’s proposalsCompare and contrast Discuss until consensus based on:

1. practicality2. utilization 3. cost

Complete recommendation worksheet

High Task Structure (+TS) condition

Criteria

Software

General information

Practicality Utilization Cost

OrCAD

Matlab

Automation Studio

MaxPlus II

POINTS

Instruction: 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

Screenshot of language supportScreenshot of language support

Summary of research designSummary of research design

-TS +TS

-LS G1n = 24

G2n = 24

+LS G3n = 24

G4n = 24

Measures of language productionMeasures of language production

Accuracy1)Error/AS-unit2)TLU auxiliary verbs3)TLU modal verbs

Complexity1)Clause/AS-unit2)Words beyond the first 1000 words3)Guiraud Index

Results: Accuracy Results: Accuracy

Errors/As-unit

0.4

0.11

0.31

0.04

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

-LS +LS

1) Errors/AS-unit

Task Structure (p ≤ 0.05)Language Support (p ≤ 0.05)Interaction effect (p ≥ 0.05)

-LS +LS

+TS

-TS

Results: Accuracy Results: Accuracy

2) TLU auxiliary verbs

% of targetlike use of auxiliary verbs

73.94

92.83

52.83

52.34

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

-LS +LS

Task Structure (p ≤ 0.05)Language Support (p ≤ 0.05)Interaction effect (p ≤ 0.05)

-LS +LS

+TS

-TS

Results: Accuracy Results: Accuracy

3) TLU modal verbs

% of targetlike use of modal verbs

88.08

99.31

74.85

79.44

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

-LS +LS

-TS +TS

Task Structure (p ≤ 0.05)Language Support (p ≤ 0.05)Interaction effect (p ≥ 0.05)

-LS +LS

+TS

-TS

Summary: Accuracy 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: DiscussionTask structure: Discussion… continued

“This 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 Results: Complexity

1) Clause/AS-unitClause/AS-unit

0.57

0.73

0.590.63

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

-LS +LS

Task Structure (p ≥ 0.05)Language Support (p ≤ 0.05)Interaction effect (p ≤ 0.05)

-LS +LS

+TS

-TS

Results: Complexity Results: Complexity

2) Words beyond the first 1000 words

% of words beyond the first 1,000 words

18.09

20.68

17.64

22.14

0

5

10

15

20

25

-LS +LS

Task Structure (p ≥ 0.05)Language Support (p ≤ 0.05)Interaction effect (p ≥ 0.05)

-LS +LS

+TS

-TS

Results: Complexity Results: Complexity

Task Structure (p ≥ 0.05)Language Support (p ≥ 0.05)Interaction effect (p ≤ 0.05)

Guiraud index

8.567.978.2

8.6

2

4

6

8

10

-LS +LS

-TS +TS

-LS +LS

-TS

+TS

Summary: Complexity 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

DiscussionDiscussion

+TS or +LS → accuracy ↑

-LS → complexity ↑

DiscussionDiscussion

“The language exercises and notes were very helpful when we had to do activities without the teacher’s 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)

DiscussionDiscussion

“We 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 TeachingImplications for Teaching

-Increasing support (structure/language) to promote attention to accuracy

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

-Task complexity: SCMC ≠ f2f

ReferencesReferences

Blake, R. & Zyzik, E. (2003). Who’s 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 YOUTHANK YOU