A partıcıpant’s perspectıve on tasks: from task ınstructıon, through pre-task plannıng, to task accomplıshment

Konuşma Çözümlemesini sınıf içi etkileşimi anlamak için kullanan son dönemlerdeki çalışmalar dil öğreniminde kullanılan aktiviteleri yerel ve müşterek bir başarı olarak tanımlamışlardır (Hellermann & Pekarek Doehler, 2010; Mondada & Pekarek Doehler, 2004; Mori, 2002). Bu çalışmalar aktivitelerin yönergelerinde belirlenen amaçlarla aktivitelerin gerçekte meydana geliş şekli arasında farklılıklar olabileceğini vurgulamıştır. Bu araştırmaları takiben bu makale aktivite yönergesi, aktivite öncesi planlama ve aktivite tamamlama arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektedir. ‘Yabancı dil olarak Fransızca öğrenimi’ sınıf etkileşimi bütüncesinden yola çıkarak, aktiviteleri organize etmek ve tamamlamak için benzer yönergeler almış altı farklı grup gözlemlenmiştir. İlk çözümsel adımda, öğrencilerin aktiviteyle ilgili etkileşimsel biçimde organize edilen yorumlayıcı çalışmayı nasıl yürüttüklerini ve aktivitenin tamamlanması için görev ve sorumlulukların dağılımını nasıl organize ettiklerini göstermekteyiz. İkinci adımda, katılımcıların bir aktiviteyi tamamlarken bu ön dağılıma ne şekilde yöneldiklerini belirlemekteyiz. Aktivitenin planlanması ve tamamlanması sürecinde katılımcıların davranışının ardaşık mikro-çözümlemesini baz alarak, Konuşma Çözümlemesinin, katılımcıya ilişkin bir perspektiften dil öğrenimi aktivitelerinin daha iyi anlaşılmasına nasıl katkıda bulunacağını göstermiş olacağız.

Recent studies applying Conversation Analysis to classroom interaction have described language learning tasks as a local and collective accomplishment (e.g. Hellermann & Pekarek Doehler, 2010; Mondada & Pekarek Doehler, 2004; Mori, 2002). They highlight the gap that may exist between the intended purpose as materialized in task instruction and the actual performance of the task. Following this line of research, this paper investigates the relationship between task instruction, pre-task planning and task completion. Based on a corpus of French as a Foreign Language classroom interactions, we observe how six different groups that have received identical instructions organize and carry out the task. In a first analytical step, we show how the students engage in interactionally organized interpretative work regarding the task, and in organizing the distribution of roles and responsibilities for the task accomplishment. In a second step, we identify how participants orient to this initial distribution within the very course of accomplishing the task. Based on a sequential micro-analysis of participants’ conduct while planning and accomplishing the task, we show how Conversation Analysis contributes to a better understanding of language learning tasks from a participant-relevant perspective.

PDF

___

Breen, M. (1987). Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design. Language Teaching, 20(3), 158-174.

Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77, 262-274.

Carroll, D. (2000). Precision timing in novice-to-novice L2 conversations. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 67-110.

Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of SLA task from an Activity Theory perspective. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173-193). Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Crookes, G. (1989). Planning and interlanguage variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 367-383.

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285-300.

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/Foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 91 (Focus Issue), 800–819.

Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-323.

Gardner, R., & Wagner, J. (Eds.) (2004). Second language conversations. London/New York: Continuum.

Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (1987). Children's arguing. In S. Phillips, S. Steele, & C. Tanz (Eds.), Language, Gender, and Sex in Comparative Perspective (pp. 200-248). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation Analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283-307.

Hellermann, J. (2008). Social action for classroom language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Hellermann, J., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010). On the contingent nature of language learning tasks. Classroom Discourse, 1, 25-45.

Kasper, G. (2006). Beyond repair. Conversation Analysis as an approach to SLA. AILA Review, 19, 83-99.

Kasper, G. (2009). Locating cognition in second language interaction and learning: inside the skull or in public view? International Review of Applied Linguistics (IRAL), 47, 11-36.

Markee, N. (2000). Conversation Analysis. Mahwah/NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Mondada, L. & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2004). Second language acquisition as situated practice: Task accomplishment in the French second language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 88 (4), 501-518.

Mondada, L., & Py, B. (1994). Vers une définition interactionnelle de la catégorie d’apprenant. In J.-C. Pochard (coord.), Profils d’apprenants. Actes du Ixe colloque international ‘Acquisition d’une langue étrangère: Perspectives et recherches’, Saint- Etienne, mai 1993 (pp. 381-395). Saint-Etienne: Publications de l’Université de Saint- Etienne.

Mori, J. (2002). Task design, plan, and development of talk-in-interaction: An analysis of a small group activity in a Japanese language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 23, 323- 347.

Pekarek Doehler, S. (2010). Conceptual changes and methodological challenges: On language, learning and documenting learning in conversation analytic SLA research. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising learning in applied linguistics (pp. 105-127). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Pochon-Berger, E. (2009). “Doing a task” in the L2 classroom: From task instruction to talk- in-interaction. ForumSprache, 2, 27-41.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50 (4), 696-735.

Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analytic perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.

Seedhouse, P. (2005). “Task” as a research construct. Language learning, 55 (3), 533-570.

ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis: a practical guide. London: Sage Publications.

Unamuno, V. (2009). Multilingual Switch in peer classroom interaction. Linguistics and Education, 19, 1-19.

Wong, J. (2000). Delayed next turn repair initiation in native/non –native speaker English conversation. Applied Linguistics, 21 (2), 244-267.

Wong, J. (2004) Some preliminary thoughts on delay as an interactional resource. In R. Gardner, & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversation (pp. 114-131). London/New York: Continuum.

Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1-27.