Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T20:47:05.371Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Collaborative scaffolding in online task-based voice interactions between advanced learners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2010

Marie-Madeleine Kenning
Marie-Madeleine Kenning*
Affiliation:
School of Language and Communication Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ (email: m.kenning@uea.ac.uk)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reports some of the findings of a distinctive innovative use of audio-conferencing involving a population (campus-based advanced learners) and a type of application (task-based language learning) that have received little attention to date: the use of Wimba Voice Tools to provide additional opportunities for spoken interactions between advanced learners of French. The experiment had a dual aim: (a) to examine the suitability of Wimba Voice Tools as an environment for sustained interactive talk, and (b) to study the nature of interactions between advanced learners, with particular reference to the processes supporting collaborative activity.

After a brief summary of the rationale and main characteristics of the experiment, the paper focuses on the strategies used by three non-native speaker (NNS) dyads to resolve language problems as they worked on a set of four tasks. Extending the classical model of negotiation for meaning to cover other instances of language-related episodes identified through discourse analysis of the empirical data, the study offers a detailed account of the incidence and nature of negotiated interaction and collaboration between partners. This leads to a discussion covering the impact of functionalities, scaffolding and task effects. The paper ends with some suggestions for future research.

Keywords

Voice chatnegotiation for meaninglearner collaborationscaffoldingtask effectsadvanced learners
Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , May 2010 , pp. 135 - 151
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Belz, J. A. (2002) Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1): 60–81.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2000) Computer mediated communication: a window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1): 120–136.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2005) Bimodal CMC: the glue of language learning at a distance. CALICO Journal, 22(3): 497–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiCamilla, F. J.Antón, M. (2004) Private speech: a study of language for thought in the collaborative interaction of language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1): 36–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donato, R. (1994) Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In: Lantolf, J.P. and Appel, G. (eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 33–56.Google Scholar
Donato, R. (2004) Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24: 284–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ewald, J. D. (2005) Language-related episodes in an assessment context: a ‘small-group quiz’. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(4): 565–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-García, M.Martínez Arbelaiz, A. (2003) Learners’ interactions: a comparison of oral and computer-assisted written conversation. ReCALL, 15(1): 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P. (1998) A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P.Ohta, A. S. (2005) Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26(3): 402–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerrero, M. C. M. deVillamil, O. S. (2000) Activating the ZPD: mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1): 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampel, R., Felix, U., Hauck, M.Coleman, J. (2005) Complexities of learning and teaching languages in a real-time audiographic environment. German as a Foreign Language, 3. http://www.gfl-journal.de/3-2005/hampel_felix_hauck_coleman.pdf.Google Scholar
Jepson, K. (2005) Conversations – and negotiated interaction – in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning and Technology, 9(3): 79–98.Google Scholar
Kenning, M.-M. (2010) Differences that make the difference: a study of functionalities in synchronous CMC. ReCALL, 22(1): 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, C.Zhao, Y. (2006) Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning and Technology, 10(3): 102–120.Google Scholar
Lamy, M.-N. (2004) Oral conversations online: redefining oral competence in synchronous environments. ReCALL, 16(2): 520–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamy, M.-N.Hampel, R. (2007) Online communication in language learning and teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. P.Thorne, S. L. (2006) Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2004) Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning and Technology, 8(1): 83–100.Google Scholar
Leeser, M. (2004) Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1): 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlewood, W. (2004) The task-based approach: some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal, 58(4): 319–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulus, T. M. (2005) Collaborative and cooperative approaches to online group work: the impact of task type. Distance Education, 26(1): 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellettieri, J. (2000) Negotiation in cyberspace: the role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In: Warschauer, M. and Kern, R. (eds.), Network-based language teaching: concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 59–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R.Falodun, J. (1993) Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction and research. In: Crookes, G. and Gass, S. M. (eds.), Tasks and language learning: integrating theory and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 9–34.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2004) Cyberdiscursive tug-of-war: learner repositioning in a multimodal CMC environment. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 19(2): 55–72.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G.Sacks, H. (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2): 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2003) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: an expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87(1): 38–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2004) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3): 365–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1): 119–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1996) Discovering successful second language teaching strategies and practices: from programme evaluation to classroom experimentation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17(2–4): 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (2001) Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1): 44–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.Lapkin, S. (1995) Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: a step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3): 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.Lapkin, S. (1998) Interaction and second language learning: two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3): 320–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.Lapkin, S. (2000) Task-based second language learning: the uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3): 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.Lapkin, S. (2001) Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In: Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M. (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman, 99–118.Google Scholar
Van den Branden, K. (2006) Task-based language education: from theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varonis, E. M.Gass, S (1985) Non-native/non-native conversations: a model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1): 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vetter, A.Chanier, T. (2006) Supporting oral production for professional purposes in synchronous communication with heterogeneous learners. ReCALL, 18(1): 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Y.Swain, M. (2007) Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2): 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (1999) Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49(4): 583–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar