I’m online, let’s chat!Neny Isharyanti-GloCALL 2007

Outline• Background theories

– Interaction hypothesis– Learning Tasks– Tasks in CALL

• Suggested tasks– Jigsaw & decision-making tasks– Rationale– Required technology– Examples– Purpose of learning– Considerations

• References

Background• Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996)• Negotiation of meaning (Gass & Varonis, 1982, 1985)• a Trigger (T), an Indicator (I), a Response (R) and a

Reaction to the Response (RR)– NNS1: My father is now retire (T)– NNS2: retire? (I)– NNS1: yes (R)– NNS2: oh yeah (RR)

Negotiation of meaning SLA

• Focus on form

• Interactional modifications

• Feedback

• Output modifications

Learning tasks• Gass and Varonis (1985)

– Type of interactions (one way vs. two way) two way tasks

– Task familiarity accustomed to the tasks

• Duff (1986)– Communication goal (convergent vs. divergent)

convergent– Independence and customized

Tasks in CALL

• Chapelle (2003); aspects to consider:– topics and actions

• What is the task goal?

• What are the topics?

• What processes are used to develop the topics?How cognitively complex are the topics and the processes?

• Where does the task take place?

Tasks in CALL– Participants

• Who are the participants?

• What are their interests with respect to language learning?

• What is their experience in using technology?

• How many participants are engaged?

• What is the relationship among the participants?

Tasks in CALL– Mode

• What are the modes of language use?

• How quickly must the language be processed?

– Evaluation • How important is it to complete the task and do it

correctly?

• How will the learners’ participation be evaluated?

Jigsaw & Decision-making tasks• Pica et al. (1993), Duff (1986), Blake (2000), Sauro

(2001)• Two-way• Familiar tasks• Convergent communication goal• Independent work• Customized• Out of class activity possible (with less control)

Required technology• Messenger programs

– MSN, Yahoo!, Gtalk– Gmail, Yahoo! Web-based messenger– Meebo, trillian

• Activation of the history or record, log of conversation– Option

• Internet connection (dial up is OK)

Jigsaw task – Picture Story (example)• Goal: Create a complete story using pictures• Pairs• Each interlocutor receives a number of different pictures

(depending on the level)• Additional activities:

– Editing the grammatical problems of the transcript– Continuing the story– Free writing/opinion on the story– Reading background history of the picture

Decision-making tasks: Desert Island (example)• Goal: to agree and decide on items to be taken to the island• Pairs• Interlocutors receive the same information on items available

to be chosen• Additional activities:

– Editing grammatical problems of the transcript– Presentation of items chosen by the pair and the reasons of selection– Story writing of possible scenario after residing in the island– Debate with other pairs about the items selected

Purpose of learning• Vocabulary development both• Focus on form of output both,

– although more interactional modifications in decision-making

• Production of language jigsaw• Activeness of both interlocutors decision-making• Reasoning decision making

Consider:

• The length of the materials

• The duration of the activity

• The amount of missing information

• Students’ familiarity with the chatting program

• Inclusion of the activity in the syllabus and assessment

References• Blake, R. (May 2000). Computer mediated communication: a window on l2

spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4 (1), 120-136. Retrieved November 1, 2004, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/.

• Chapelle, C. (2003). English language learning and technology. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

• Choe, S. K. (2000). The effect of modeling a jigsaw task on communicative strategies of ESL learners. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of English, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.

• Duff, P. (1986). Another look at interlanguage talk: Taking task to task. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 147-181). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

• Gass, S. and Varonis, E. (1985). The effect of familiarity on the comprehension of nonnative speech. Language Learning, 34, 65-89.

References• Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction and second-language acquisition.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259-278.• Pica, T., Kanagy, R. & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using

communication tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crookes and S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-34). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

• Sauro, S. (2001). The success of task type in facilitating oral language production in online computer mediated collaborative projects. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of English, Iowa State University: Ames, IA.

• Varonis, E. and Gass, S. (1982). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6 (1), 71-90.