To investigate the use, or otherwise, of conversational adjustments (CAs), in a
normal instructional setting, the quality of speech generated during meaning
negotiation, and learner perception of the task under study, a quantitative and a
qualitative analysis was carried out of language produced in a dyadic set-up in a
one-way information task, a two-way information task and a decision-making task. The
study revealed that the quantitative analysis supported the results usually found in
Second Language Acquisition (SLA) studies: that the use of CAs generated by the 10
dyads in the two-way communication task was indeed significantly higher than in the
one-way task and the decision-making task. However, while the overall
group’s quantitative behaviour confirms the use of CAs, the qualitative
analysis shows that the individuals’ performance in their use differs
widely within and across task types. Learner idiosyncrasy is therefore perhaps a far
more important phenomenon than commonality, and learners’ perception of
the task may be much more relevant than its logical construction. Both aspects,
learner idiosyncrasy and learner perception of tasks, suggest that predictability
will be a perennial problem, not just a temporary technical one that some
imaginative task designers will soon resolve. This calls into question the
desirability of output predictability as an aim for task-based materials design. The
report ends with further emphasis on the value of including learners in the
development of understanding of classroom life.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allwright, R. L.1980: Turns, topics and tasks: patterns of participation in
language learning and teaching. In
Larsen-Freeman
, editor, Discourse analysis in second language research,
Rowley, MA: Newbury House
, 165-187.
2.
Allwright, R. L.1988: Observation in the language classroom.
London: Longman
.
3.
Allwright, R. L.1991: Focus on the language classroom. An introduction for language
teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
.
4.
Allwright, R. L.1996a:
Making sense of life in the language classroom: the significance of
participant orientations
. ESP Malaysia4:
41-63
.
5.
Allwright, R. L.1996b: ‘Social and pedagogic pressures in the language
classroom: the role of socialisation.’ In
Coleman, H.
, editor, Society and the language classroom,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
, 209-228.
6.
Allwright, R. L.1997: Classroom-oriented research in language learning.
In
Tucker, G. R.
and
Corson D.
, editors, The encyclopedia of language and education, Volume 4,
Dordrecht: Kluwer
, 63-74.
7.
Allwright, R. L.2000: Interaction and negotiation in the language classroom: their
role in learner development. Available as CRILE Working Paper 50.
8.
Allwright, R. L.2003:
Exploratory Practice: rethinking practitioner research in language teaching
. Language Teaching Research7(2):
113-141
.
9.
Aston, G.1986:
Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: the more the merrier?Applied Linguistics7(2):
128-143
.
10.
Block, D.2003: The social turn in second language acquisition.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
.
11.
Block, D.2004:
Review article: Review of Rod Ellis’s Task-based language
learning and teaching
. Language Learning Journal, 29:
18-22
.
12.
Breen, M. P.1985:
The social context for language learning - a neglected situation?Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 7:
135-158
.
13.
Breen, M. P.1987: Learner contribution to the task design. In
Candlin, C. N.
and
Murphy, D.
, editors, Language learning tasks, Volume 7,
Prentice-Hall International
, 23-46.
14.
Breen, M. P.2001: Overt participation and covert acquisition in the language
classroom. In
Breen, M. P.
, editor, Learner contributions to language learning. New directions in
research,
Harlow, UK: Longman
, 112-140.
15.
Bygate, M.
,
Skehan, P.
and
Swain M.
. 2001: Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning,
teaching and testing.
Harlow, UK: Longman
.
16.
Davies, J. 2000: Social perspectives on negotiation for meaning. Unpublished
MA dissertation. Institute of Education, University of London.
17.
Doughty, C.
and
Pica, T.1986:
‘Information Gap’ tasks: do they facilitate second
language acquisition?TESOL Quarterly20(2):
305-325
.
18.
Doughty, C.
and
Varela, E.1998: Communicative focus on form. In
Doughty, C.
and
Williams, J.
editors, Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
.
19.
Duff, P.1986: Another look at interlanguage talk: taking task to
task. In
Day, R.
, editor, Talking to learn,
Rowley, MA: Newbury House
.
20.
Ellis, R.2003: Task-based language learning and teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
.
21.
Fillmore, C.
,
Kempler, D.
and
Wan, W.
, editors, 1979: Individual differences in language ability
and language behavior.
New York: Academic Press
.
22.
Foster, P.1998:
A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning
. Applied Linguistics19(1):
1-23
.
23.
Gass, S. M.1997: Input, interaction and the second language learner.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
.
24.
Gore, J.1995:
Groups and tasks: let’s take a closer look
. British Council Teaching Centres10, Winter.
25.
Gunn, C. L.2003:
Exploring second language communicative competence
. Language Teaching Research7(2):
240-258
.
26.
Hawkins, B.1985: Is the appropriate response always so appropriate?
In
Gass, S. M.
and
Madden, C. C.
, editors, Input in second language acquistion,
Rowley, MA: Newbury House
.
27.
Hymes, D.1972: Models of the interaction of language and social
life. In
Gumperz, J.
and
Hymes, D.
, editors, Directions in sociolinguistics,
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
, 35-71.
28.
Jauregi, K. 1990: Task-variation in native/non-native conversation.
Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Reading.
29.
Kumaradivelu, B.1991:
Language learning tasks: teacher intention and learner interpretation
. English Language Teaching Journal45(2):
98-107
.
30.
Lantolf, J. P.2001: (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: understanding second
language learners as people. In
Breen, M. P.
, editor, Learner contributions to language learning: new directions in
research.
London and New York: Longman
, 141-158.
31.
Long, M. H.1980: Input, interaction and second language
acquisition. In
Winitz, H.
, editor, Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 379: Native
language and foreign language acquisition,
New York: New York Academy of Sciences
, 259-278.
32.
Long, M. H.1988: Instructed interlanguage development. In
Beebe, L.
, editor, Issues in second language acquisition: multiple
perspectives,
Rowley, MA: Newbury House
.
33.
Long, M. H.1989:
Task, group, and task-group interaction
. University of Hawaii Working Papers in English as a Second Language8:
1-26
.
34.
Nakahama, Y.
,
Tyler, A.
and
van Lier, L.2001:
Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities: a
comparative discourse analysis
. TESOL Quarterly35(3):
377-405
.
35.
Ondarra, K.1997: Collaborative negotiation of meaning.
Amsterdam: Rodopi
.
36.
Paulston, C. B.1974:
Linguistic and communicative competence
. TESOL Quarterly8(4):
347-362
.
37.
Pica, T.1987:
Second language acquisition, Social interaction and the classroom
. Applied Linguistics, 81:
3-21
.
38.
Pica, T.1997:
Second language teaching and research relationships: a North American view
. Language Teaching Research1(1):
48-72
.
39.
Pica, T.
and
Doughty, C.1985: Input and interaction in the communicative language
classroom. In
Gass, S. M.
and
Madden, C. G.
, editors, Input in second language acquisition,
Rowley, MA: Newbury House
, 115-132.
40.
Pica, T.
,
Halliday, L.
,
Lewis, N.
and
Morgenthaler, L.1989:
Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner
. Studies in Second Language Acquisition11:
63-90
.
41.
Pica, T.
,
Kanagy, R.
and
Falodun, J.1993: Choosing and using communication tasks for second language
instruction. In
Gass, S. M.
and
Crookes, G.
, editors, Task-based learning in second language acquisition,
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual matters
, 9-34.
42.
Pierce, B. N.1995:
Social identity, investment and language learning
. TESOL Quarterly29(1):
9-31
.
43.
Platt, E.
and
Brooks, F. B.1994:
The ‘acquisition-rich environment’ revisited
. The Modern Language Journal78(4):
497-511
.
44.
Plough, I.
and
Gass, S.1993: Interlocutor and task familiarity: effects on interactional
structure. In
Crookes, G.
and
Gass, S.
, editors, Task and language learning: integrating theory and
practice,
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters
.
45.
Rubin, J.1975:
What the ‘good language learner’ can teach us
. TESOL Quarterly9(1):
41-51
.
46.
Samuda, V.2001: Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task
performance: the role of the teacher. In
Bygate
,
Skehan
and
Swain
, editors, 119-134.
47.
Skehan, P.1998: A cognitive approach to language learning.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
.
48.
Skehan, P.
and
Foster, P.2001: Cognition and tasks. In
Robinson, P.
, editor, Cognition and second language instruction,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
.
49.
Slimani-Rolls, A.2003:
Exploring a world of paradoxes: an investigation of group work
. Language Teaching Research7(2):
221-239
.
50.
Swain, M.1985: Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible
input and comprehensible output in its development. In
Gass, S. M.
and
Madden, C. G.
, editors, Input and second language acquisition,
Rowley, MA: Newbury House
, 149-162.
51.
Twaddell, F.1973:
Vocabulary expansion in the TESOL classroom
. TESOL Quarterly7(1):
61-78
.
52.
van Lier, L.1996: Interaction in the language curriculum: awareness, autonomy
and authenticity.
London: Longman
.
53.
Varonis, E.
and
Gass, S. M.1985:
Non-native/non-native conversations: a model for negotiation of meaning
. Applied Linguistics6:
71-90
.
54.
Willis, D.1996: Accuracy, fluency and conformity. In
Willis, J.
and
Willis D.
, editors, Challenge and change in language teaching.
Oxford: Heinemann
.
55.
Zhang, R.2004:
Using the principles of Exploratory Practice to guide group work in an
extensive reading class in China
. Language Teaching Research8(2):
225-239
.
