CALICO
March 13-17, 2001, Orlando, Florida
The Success of Task Type in Facilitating Oral Language Production in Online
Computer Mediated Collaborative Projects
Shannon Sauro
Iowa State University
The purpose of this study was to investigate two original communicative tasks, a jigsaw task and a
decision-making task specifically designed to take advantage of computer mediated communication in the CALL
classroom. These tasks not only require students to use information available over the Internet to find solutions to
different aspects of each problem, but also make use of an application which facilitated both synchronous text and
voice-chat between students at different locations.
Both tasks were carried out by four dyads, two of which consisted of non-native English speakers with
different L1s and two of which consisted of one non-native English speaker and one native speaker of American
English. Each session was video-recorded to capture what was said and written by dyad members as they attempted
to complete each task in 20 minutes. Transcripts of the recorded sessions were analyzed to see whether these tasks
encouraged participants to make use of oral communication and the negotiation of meaning, thereby presenting them
with the opportunity to use spoken English with someone from a different language background and aiding in
second language acquisition.
It is hoped that the results of this study will not only lead to the improvement of these tasks but will also aid
in the creation of CMC tasks which can be used to link classes of English learners and English speakers in different
parts of the world.
1.
2.
Research Questions
Will CMC using voice-chat support prior research (Pica, Kanagy & Falodun, 1993), which indicated that
jigsaw tasks facilitate greater negotiation of meaning than do decision-making tasks?
What effects will mixed NS/NNS oral online collaboration have on the amount of negotiation of meaning
as compared to NNS dyads?
The Tasks
The Jigsaw Task – Problem Gradschool
A mutual friend from China named Harry needs help deciding whether he should apply to MIT or Stanford to study
for his MS in Computer Science. Both dyad members possess five different bits of information about Harry, such as
his TOEFL and GRE scores, his wife’s intent to study linguistics, or his financial situation. After using their
respective pieces of information to investigate both universities’ websites to see which of the two schools fulfils
Harry’s needs, both partners must meet online, compare information, and select the one school that would suit Harry
the best.
The complete directions to this task are available online
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~totoro/research/grad.html
The Decision-Making Task – Problem Hawaii
In this scenario both members of the dyad work for a travel magazine but write two very different types of articles,
either adventure travel articles or high culture and luxury travel articles. Both writers are being sent to Hawaii for a
week to prepare material for an upcoming issue. However, they have been given a US$5000 budget which they
need to share between them for all expenses. Their boss would like an approximate budget breakdown, so both
writers need to research various websites to determine transportation and hotel costs in addition to the cost of
appropriate tourist activities. They will then meet online to negotiate a budget, which they must email to the boss.
The complete directions to this task are available online
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~totoro/research/hawaii.html
1
The Application
Applications which facilitate synchronous CMC have begun to receive a lot of attention because they
enable learners to communicate with other learners or native speakers in real-time. However, the vast majority of
these applications, MOOs, yTalk, and Interchange’s Daedalus, only enable synchronous text-based communication.
One recent exception is the application used by the LEVERAGE project in Europe which enabled students to
communicate with one another using an application that permits video-conferencing and text-based communication
(Zähner, Fauverge & Wong, 2000). Although video-conferencing is not yet a viable option for most computer users,
the boom in Internet applications has seen the development of free downloadable applications, which now enable
synchronous voice-chat in addition to text-based communication.
This study made use of one such application available through Yahoo! Messenger. The image below is a
screen capture of what a typical voice-conference in Yahoo! Messenger looks like. For more information on system
requirements, text and voice features, and download instructions, visit Yahoo!’ at http://www.yahoo.com.
In order to capture both what was spoken and written, a video camera was placed in the room with one
participant from each dyad. By focusing it on the screen, the camera could record what students typed at the same
time the camera’s microphone captured what was said by both the on and off-site participants.
2
Participants
Eight participants were paired up to form four dyads, two of which were NNS dyads and two of which were mixed
NS/NNS dyads.
Table 1. Dyad Composition and Task Order
Participants Native Language
First Task
Second Task
Dyad 1
Dyad 2
Dyad 3
Dyad 4
Yama
Kelly
Callis
BB
Ingan
Mogador
Hajime
Escort
Japanese
Korean
Korean
Japanese
Korean
American English
Japanese
American English
Hawaii
Gradschool
Gradschool
Hawaii
Hawaii
Gradschool
Gradschool
Hawaii
Negotiation of Meaning
For this study, negotiation of meaning was defined as attempts by the participants to clarify, correct, or overcome
linguistic misunderstandings. Although these misunderstandings were not further categorized, they did include both
spoken and written misunderstandings or attempts at solution. As a result of the mathematical nature of Problem
Hawaii, attempts to negotiate the meaning of numerical values were also included. The model for negotiation
routines as described by Varonis and Gass (1985) was instrumental in tagging these routines.
Misunderstandings and negotiation routines which occurred for the following reasons were not considered
negotiation of meaning:
 Inaudibility,
 Technical problems,
 Task Misunderstandings,
 Outside distractions (telephone calls, interruption by the researcher),
 Overt misunderstandings which were ignored.
Some Examples of Negotiation of Meaning
Italicized text represents written turns.
Excerpt from Dyad 4, Problem Gradschool
Escort:
Okay, then we need to decide on, we need to decide on which school our friend needs to go to. Is
that correct?
Hajime:
Excuse me. Say that again.
Escort:
I think, I think we have to decide on which school our friend should apply. Is that correct?
Hajime:
Can you type on the computer? I’m sorry.
Escort:
Not a problem.
Hajime, I think our assignment is to decide which school we should tell our friend to apply to. Is
this correct?
Hajime:
Yes, I have to answer what students need to apply to shool.
Excerpt from Dyad 1, Problem Hawaii
Kelly:
15*10=150; Maximum price
Yama:
Meal, okay. 5 days, 3, 15 times.
Hey Kelly?
Kelly:
We can pay less that 10 dollar per meal.
Yeah?
Yama:
Pay less than 10 dollar. What is the 10? 15 time, 15 times 10?
Kelly:
Oh, 10 dollar. 10 means 10 dollar so total is oh, 150 dollar.
Yama:
Okay, okay.
3
Analysis of Turns
Table 2. Total Turns Per Problem
Hawaii
Gradschool
Total
Dyad 1
261
119
380
Dyad 2
93
96
189
Dyad 3
98
84
182
Dyad 4
74
78
152
Total
526
377
903
% of Total
58.25%
41.75%
These numbers represent the total spoken and written turns taken by both participants in each dyad during the
approximately 20 minutes they had to complete each task.
However, these numbers do not adequately explain what else was occurring.
 The off-site participant in Dyad 1 made use of headphones, which enabled both partners to use the hands free
option. This meant that their microphones were voice-activated and that they did not have to click the green
talk button each time they wished to speak like the three other dyads had to.
 Due to feedback problems, Dyad 2 relied far more on text chat than did the other dyads. Because it took them
longer to type a message than speak it, this probably reduced their potential number of turns.
 Due to familiarity with the subject matter, the members of Dyad 3 found the jigsaw problem, Gradschool, a
little too easy and were able to complete it in only 11 minutes.
Table 3. Total Turns Dedicated to Negotiation of Meaning Per Problem
Hawaii
Gradschool
Total
Dyad 1
125
25
150
Dyad 2
24
20
44
Dyad 3
16
10
26
Dyad 4
13
32
45
Total
178
87
265
% of Total
67.17%
32.83%
Two raters analyzed the transcripts of each session. Using the model for negotiation of meaning put forth by
Varonis and Gass (1985), they were asked to determine where each NM routine began and ended. The turns
included in each routine, spoken and written, are represented in the table above.
4
What the Numbers Said
The following results were found to be statistically significant:
1.
There was a difference between task type. Contrary to what was expected according to the task analysis
conducted by Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (1993), Problem Hawaii, the decision-making problem, facilitated
more negotiation of meaning overall. (2=58.13, df=1, p<0.05)
2.
There was also a difference between dyad type. The NNS dyads produced more negotiation of meaning
than did the NS/NNS dyads. (2=81, df=1, p<0.05)
3.
Between the NNS dyads, Problem Hawaii facilitated more negotiation of meaning. However, between the
NS/NNS dyads, the reverse was true with Problem Gradschool producing more negotiation of meaning.
4.
The order in which the tasks were carried out had an effect on the amount of negotiation of meaning that
took place. Investigating only Dyads 3 and 4 revealed that more negotiation of meaning took place in
whichever task was carried out first. (2=11.834, df=1, p<0.05)
What the Participants Said
Problem Hawaii required more typing than Problem Gradschool because of the money involved. (Hajime, Japanese
Participant, Dyad 4)
The second task (Problem Hawaii) was easier to complete because they had built a rapport with one another by then.
(Escort, American Participant, Dyad 4)
The instructions for Gradschool were not clear. What was the purpose of the task? (Yama, Japanese Participant,
Dyad 1)
Using voice-chat to communicate added a barrier because it was mono-duplex (only one person could talk at a time)
and not full-duplex like a phone. This slowed them down because they had to stop and take turns so as not to
interfere. (Escort, American Participant, Dyad 4)
Problem Gradschool could benefit from a more complex puzzle. Both participants reached the same conclusion
from the data they independently had. (Mogador, American Participant, Dyad 3)
Problem Hawaii was more enjoyable because of the discussion. They could talk about more things because it was
more flexible. (Ingan, Korean Participant, Dyad 3)
Talking with a Japanese made understanding easy because Korean and Japanese are similar. They have similar
learning styles. They make similar mistakes. (Callis, Korean Participant, Dyad 2)
For explicit task directions and copies of the pre and post trial questionnaires, visit
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~totoro/research/contact.html.
Eventually, the transcripts for each session and my thesis, when it’s completed, will be posted online. For further
information, please email me at totoro@iastate.edu.
5
References
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching,
testing, and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapelle, C., Jamieson, J., & Park, Y. (1996). Second language classroom research traditions: How does
CALL fit? In Pennington, M. (Ed.), The Power of CALL (pp. 33-53). Houston,TX: Athelstan.
Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence.
System. 22, 17-31.
Donaldson, R., & Kötter, M. (1999). Language learning in cyberspace: Teleporting the classroom into the target
culture. CALICO Journal. 16(4), 531-557.
Doughty, C. & Pica, T. (1986). “Information Gap” tasks: Do they facilitate second language acquisition.
TESOL Quarterly. 20(2), 305-325.
Egbert, J & Hanson-Smith, E. (Eds.). (1999). CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical
issues. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gass, S. & Selinker L. (1994). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Earlbaum Associates Inc.
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and NNS/NNS negotiation of meaning. In S. Gass and C.
Madden (Eds.), Communication in the Classroom (pp.149-161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: effects on quantity and
characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal. 79(4), 457-476.
Lamy, M., & Goodfellow, R. (1999). “Reflective conversation” in the virtual language classroom.
Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 43-61.
Lee, L. (1998). Going beyond classroom learning: Acquiring cultural knowledge via on-line newspapers
and intercultural exchanges via on-line chatrooms. CALICO Journal, 16(2), 101-120.
Long, M. (1983). Linguistic and conversation adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 5, 177-194.
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical
competence. . In M. Warschauer, & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts
and practice (pp. 59-86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions,
processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493-527.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second
language instruction. In G. Crookes, & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating
theory & practice. (pp.9-34). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F, Paninos, D. & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners’ interaction: How does it
address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly. 30(1), 59-84.
Plough, I., & Gass, S. (1993) Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effects on interaction structure. In G.
Crookes, & S. Gass (Eds.), Task and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. (pp.
35-56). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
Salaberry, R. (1997). A theoretical foundation for the development of pedagogical tasks in computer
mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 14(1), 5-34.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics,
17(1), 38-62.
Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous
communication. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1), 82-119.
Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computerassisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System. 29, 491-501.
Van Handle, D., & Corl, K. (1998). Extending the dialogue: using electronic mail and the Internet to
promote conversation and writing in intermediate level German language courses. CALICO
Journal. 15(1-3). 129-143.
Varonis, E. & Gass S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: As model for negotiation. Applied
Linguistics, 6, 71-90.
Warschauer, M. (1997a). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language
classroom. CALICO Journal. 13(2&3), 7-25.
Zähner, C., Fauverge, A., & Wong, J. (2000). Task-based language learning via audiovisual networks.
In M. Warschauer, & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice
(pp. 186-203). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6