5th untele conference university of compiègne march 2004
DESCRIPTION
5th UNTELE conference University of Compiègne March 2004. An analysis of dyadic discourse within a learning environment designed for learner autonomy. by David Rees Ph.D. Institut National d’Horticulture, Angers www.multimania.com/davidrees [email protected]. CONTENTS. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
5th UNTELE conferenceUniversity of CompiègneMarch 2004
An analysis of dyadic discourse within a learning environment designed for learner autonomy
by
David Rees Ph.D.
Institut National d’Horticulture, Angers
www.multimania.com/[email protected]
2. A typical language lesson
1. The learning environment
3. Negotiation
CONTENTS
4. Vygotsky’s concepts of internalisation and the ZPD
5. Discourse analysis
6. Corpus analysis
7. Results
8. Conclusions
‘Grande Ecole’ with two colleges (Bac 0+5 and Bac 2+3)Applied engineering in horticulture and landscaping
2 foreign languages (for specific purposes) with compulsory minimum levels
Compulsory foreign professional training period in Year 1
1. The learning environment
Over 50% of students on inter-university exchanges
Highly positive attitudes for learning foreign languages
All lessons in 25-post multimedia rooms, and available via intranet.
2. A typical language lesson
The Tandberg pilot
Pedagogy based on Mutual Scaffolding
1. Separate the classinto two equal groups
2. Select the sources
Video 1 Video 2
3. Diffuse the sources
4. Form intragroup dyadsMacro/micro-comprehension
4. Intragroup dyad: micro-comprehension
5. Intergroupdyads
(negociation)
3. Negotiation
The repeating, rephrasing and restructuring of phrases in L1 or L2 between two or more learners to enable them to understand the meaning of the messages they arecommunicating (Long)Interlanguage (Selinker)
1
Intragroup negotiation1
1
Student 2 Student 4
Input 1 Input 2
Student 1 Student 3
Intergroup negotiation
2
2
2
INFORMATION
GAP
NNS NNS
Negotiation of content
Negotiation of comprehension
NNS
linguisticor
semiotic‘self’
NNS
linguisticor
semiotic‘self’
ZPD ZPD
2
negotiation and the ZPD
Each learner assists theother since each hasinternalised differentsemiotic, linguistic orconceptual competences).Mutual scaffolding takes place.
5. Discourse Analysis Model
1. Problem source2. Repair type3. Discourse code
Problem Source
Ph Phonological (caused by pronunciation or accentuation)
Gr Grammatical (caused by the syntax of a word or phrase)
Lx Lexical (caused by unknown or incorrect vocabulary)
Cn Content (caused by lack of comprehension of the content or concept)
Ds Discourse (caused by pragmatic, social or cultural misunderstanding)
Ps Pause (a pause can indicate a problem and incite repair)
Problems can be due to production mistakes or comprehension difficulty
Repair Type
XL2 Explanation in L2
XL1 Explanation in L1
GT Grammatical Transformation
TL1 Translation into L1
TL2 Translation into L2
Mod Model (the repair is an attempt to provide the ‘correct’ word or form)
Syn Synonym (a synonym or alternate version is provided)
Rep Repetition
Con Confirmation
Com Completion (normally following a pause; the completion of a word or phrase)
Discourse Codes
SR Self Repair ‘she disperses, it disperses …’
RA Requested Assistance ‘how do you say disseminer’?
RR Response to Request ‘disseminer is to disperse’ / ‘I don’t know’
AC Acceptance ‘disperse, okay’
UR Unrequested Repair A. ‘who mutates ’ B. ‘that mutates’
UA Unrequested Assistance A. ‘It’s a scented fruit’ B. ‘Like the guava’
CC Confirmation Check ‘A power station, okay?’
6. Corpus Analysis
7. Results
Negotiation triggers
45% lexical
25% content problems
11% due to silence
Repair type
15% explanation in L2 15% translation in L1
10% repetition 19% confirmation 15% completion
Discourse type
44% Request for help 20% Unrequested help 23% Confirmation check
Self-repairs
43% Grammatrical transformation 50% Provision of a model
Comparison of student/teacher intervention
Mostly grammatical, phoneticand discourse triggers for the teacher
Mostly lexical and content triggersfor the students
Comparison of teacher / student repair types
Teacher: high degree explanation in L2and provision of correct model
Students: a wide-variety of repair types
Teacher: high level of non-requested aid
Students: high level of aid requests
Laughter
An average of 10 laughter ‘events’ per dyad per lesson
8. Conclusions
Dyadic, task-based pair work maximises negotiation opportunities
Negotiation leads to acquisition
Negotiation is effected by:a) task typeb) familiarity of partnersc) cultural similarity of partners
NNS-NNS negotiation appears to be more suitable than NS-NNS negotiation
Technology can enhance a dyadic learning environment
A technology-structured environment can enhance learner autonomy
5th UNTELE conferenceUniversity of CompiègneMarch 2004
An analysis of dyadic discourse within a learning environment designed for learner autonomy
by
David Rees Ph.D.
Institut National d’Horticulture, Angers
www.multimania.com/[email protected]