1. June 2-3JALTCALL 20071 Japanese EFL learners’ negotiated interaction during convergent and divergent tasks in SCMC Daniel O. Jackson J.F. Oberlin University, Tokyo

2. June 2-3JALTCALL 20072

3. June 2-3JALTCALL 20073

4. June 2-3JALTCALL 20074 Overview Introduction –Task-based synchronous CMC –Background to the study Method –Participants –Procedures –Tasks in the study Results Discussion

5. June 2-3JALTCALL 20075 Tasks in synchronous CMC Learners can negotiate for meaning, achieve mutual comprehension, and modify production (Pellettieri, 2000) Task type affects negotiation: jigsaw > information gap and decision-making (Blake, 2000) Seeding may increase negotiation: decision-making > jigsaw (Smith, 2003)

6. June 2-3JALTCALL 20076 Negotiated interaction (From Varonis & Gass, 1985, p. 74) TI > R > RR

7. June 2-3JALTCALL 20077 Negotiated interaction S1: if you have a job you don’t like, you might quit and no enthusiam to work S1: it is no fun in your life. S2: What does enthusiam mean? S1: this means you have no interesting for working S2: I see, thank you.

8. June 2-3JALTCALL 20078 Tasks in synchronous CMC Degree of task structure influences communication in CMC -- less teacher- directed task structures encourage metalanguage (Lamy, 2007)

9. June 2-3JALTCALL 20079 Background to the study Integrate CMC tasks in an EAP course for English majors at a private university in Japan Adopt pedagogic task types Employ a classroom research strategy that builds on existing findings

10. June 2-3JALTCALL 200710 Purpose Compare EFL learners’ interaction during convergent and divergent tasks in synchronous CMC

11. June 2-3JALTCALL 200711 Goal orientation (adapted from Duff, 1986, p. 150) Convergent task Problem Shared goal S1S2 Split goal S1S2 Issue, opinion, debate Divergent task

12. June 2-3JALTCALL 200712 Summary of Duff (1986) Words Con. = Div. Turns Con. > Div. Words/Turn Div. > Con. S-nodes/C-unit Div. > Con. Questions –Confirmation checks Con. > Div. –Referential questions Con. > Div.

13. June 2-3JALTCALL 200713 Participants Female English majors taking EAP 2nd year L1 Japanese Most reported having used chat All had taken a computer lit course 19 students (both tasks)

14. June 2-3JALTCALL 200714 Procedures CMC tasks in weeks 5, 8 & 11 T explained the tasks to the class Ss read instructions and logged into Moodle Chat module/grouping were used Ss typed messages for 20 mins./task Chat logs saved by T Survey carried out in week 11

15. June 2-3JALTCALL 200715

16. June 2-3JALTCALL 200716

17. June 2-3JALTCALL 200717 Tasks examined in the study Decision-making - con. Opinion exchange - div.

18. June 2-3JALTCALL 200718 Measures Words, turns, words per turn Referential Qs, comprehension checks, clarification requests, and confirmation checks (inter-rater reliability was 92%) Clauses per C-unit (following Chaudron, 1988; Crookes, 1990; Foster, 1998; Robinson, 2001; Djapoura, 2005)

19. June 2-3JALTCALL 200719 Clauses per c-unit S3: Yes, you may feel happy if you do a job you love, but, after that, having a lot of money can be more happier… S4: Actually, I agree with your opinion!!

20. June 2-3JALTCALL 200720 Summary of results Participants typed 18% more words in the divergent task (1352) than in the convergent task (1142) The convergent task contained 36% more turns (225) than the divergent task (166) Average WPT was 9.61 in the divergent task (SD=4.28) and 6.08 in the convergent task (SD=2.58)

21. June 2-3JALTCALL 200721 Summary of results Participants typed 18% more words in the divergent task (1352) than in the convergent task (1142) The convergent task contained 36% more turns (225) than the divergent task (166) Average WPT was 9.61 in the divergent task (SD=4.28) and 6.08 in the convergent task (SD=2.58)

22. June 2-3JALTCALL 200722 Summary of results There were more than 3 times the number of referential questions in the convergent task (51) than in the divergent task (14) Amount of negotiation for meaning was similar (and low) across both tasks The average CPC was 1.39 in the convergent task (SD=.37) and 1.78 in the divergent task (SD=.27)

23. June 2-3JALTCALL 200723 Summary of results There were more than 3 times the number of referential questions in the convergent task (51) than in the divergent task (14) Amount of negotiation for meaning was similar (and low) across both tasks The average CPC was 1.39 in the convergent task (SD=.37) and 1.78 in the divergent task (SD=.27)

24. June 2-3JALTCALL 200724 The individual dimension: Responses to F2F and CMC

25. June 2-3JALTCALL 200725 The individual dimension: Participants’ written comments “There were times when replies in the chats came late” “In chat I couldn’t write the things I wanted to write…I want to become able to do it properly” “Chats took time to reply to and I’m not a skilled typist, but it was fun”

26. June 2-3JALTCALL 200726 Limitations Grouping –Not all participated in both tasks Measurement –Tasks not counterbalanced –5-week interval between tasks –Survey timing

27. June 2-3JALTCALL 200727 Discussion Different effects on production in CMC Low frequency of modified interaction Ability, motivation, interest ratings may vary

28. June 2-3JALTCALL 200728 Contact information Daniel Jackson danielja@obirin.ac.jp